R. v. Cinous (J.) (2002), 285 N.R. 1 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
………………..
Temp. Cite: [2002] N.R. TBEd. MR.014
Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. Jacques Cinous (respondent) and Attorney General of Canada and Attorney General for Ontario (intervenors)
(27788; 2002 SCC 29)
Indexed As: R. v. Cinous (J.)
Supreme Court of Canada
McLachlin, C.J.C., L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ.
March 21, 2002.
Summary:
During a trip in the accused’s van to a planned theft, the accused got out of his vehicle at a well-lit, crowded service station. He walked to the rear of the van, opened the back door and shot a member of his criminal group in the back of the head. The accused was charged with first degree murder. The issue at trial was whether the accused acted in self-defence. The accused testified that he believed two members of the group intended to kill him and that he had no choice but to shoot as a preemptive strike. The trial judge left the defence of self-defence with the jury. The jury returned a verdict of guilty of second degree murder. The accused appealed, submitting that the trial judge misdirected the jury on self-defence. The Crown submitted that any errors were irrelevant, because there was no “air of reality” to the defence of self-defence and the defence should not have been left with the jury. Accordingly, the Crown submitted that s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code should be invoked to dismiss the appeal.
The Quebec Court of Appeal, in a judgment reported 143 C.C.C.(3d) 397, allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial. The defence had an “air of reality”. The errors in the jury charge warranted a new trial. The Crown appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada, Arbour, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., dissenting, allowed the appeal and restored the conviction. There was no “air of reality” to the defence of self-defence. The defence should not have been left to the jury. Accordingly, errors in the jury charge respecting self-defence were irrelevant. Section 686(1)(b)(iii) applied to dismiss the appeal.
Criminal Law – Topic 204
General principles – Common law defences – Self-defence – The accused and accomplices were involved in the theft of computers – The accused believed two of the accomplices intended to kill him – The accused drove his van to an intended theft – The accomplices were passengers – The accused stopped at a well-lit, crowded service station – After purchasing windshield washer fluid, the accused opened the back door and shot one of the accomplices in the back of the head – The accused pleaded self-defence, alleging that he had no choice but to shoot the victim before he himself was shot and that he had no alternative (calling police, flight, etc.) – The trial judge left self-defence with the jury – The jury rejected the defence and convicted the accused of second degree murder – The Court of Appeal ordered a new trial because of serious defects in the jury charge on self-defence – The Supreme Court of Canada restored the conviction – There was no “air of reality” to the defence and it should not have been left with the jury – Although there was an “air of reality” to the existence of an assault, subjectively and objectively, a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from both a subjective and objective perspective and a subjective belief in the absence of alternatives to killing, there was no “air of reality” to the requirement that the accused’s belief be objectively reasonable – Accordingly, there was absolutely no evidence upon which a properly instructed jury, acting reasonably, could have acquitted the accused if it believed his evidence to be true – Any misdirections on self-defence were irrelevant and s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code applied to dismiss the appeal – See paragraphs 47 to 126.
Criminal Law – Topic 4351
Procedure – Charge or directions – Jury or judge alone – Direction regarding burden of proof and reasonable doubt – A jury charge on reasonable doubt spoke of “moral certainty” five times – The Supreme Court of Canada noted that the use of the words “moral certainty” was disapproved of in R. v. Lifchus – However, the jury charge predated Lifchus and whether the error was fatal depended upon whether the jury charge, as a whole, substantially complied with the Lifchus principles – The court held that substantial compliance was established where it was not likely that the jury misunderstood the standard of proof they were to apply – See paragraphs 42 to 45.
Criminal Law – Topic 4370
Procedure – Charge or directions – Jury or judge alone – Directions regarding self-defence – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that a trial judge erred in failing to specifically tie the question of the burden of proof to self-defence – The court stated that “general warnings about the presumption of innocence and the fact that the burden of proof lies with the Crown are insufficient in these circumstances, i.e., in the course of a long and complicated jury charge involving self-defence. In a situation where the accused relies on this defence, and perhaps especially when the accused testifies, the jury must be told that the burden of proof in relation to this defence is on the Crown, who must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defence does not apply.” – See paragraph 39.
Criminal Law – Topic 4370
Procedure – Charge or directions – Jury or judge alone – Directions regarding self-defence – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that imminence of an attack was not a formal requirement for self-defence – It was merely a factor to be considered in determining the reasonableness of the accused’s response – The court stated that “the failure to identify imminency as a factor rather than a formal requirement was not a reversible error” – See paragraph 40.
Criminal Law – Topic 4386
Procedure – Charge or directions – Jury or judge alone – Judge’s duty to determine if defence available on evidence – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that any defence lacking an “air of reality” was not to be left with the jury – The test was whether there was evidence on the record upon which a properly instructed jury acting reasonably could acquit – The burden on an accused was merely evidential, rather than persuasive – In applying the reality test, the evidence relied on by the accused was assumed to be true – The evidence need not be adduced by the accused – The substantive merits of the defence are for the jury to decide – The trial judge was not to determine the credibility of witnesses, weigh the evidence, make fact findings or draw factual inferences – The question was whether the evidence disclosed a real issue to be decided by the jury – The question was not whether there was evidence in some general sense, but whether there was evidence capable of forming the basis for an acquittal – The court stated that “the question remains whether there is (1) evidence (2) upon which a properly instructed jury acting reasonably could acquit if it believed the evidence to be true. The second part of this question can be rendered by asking whether the evidence put forth is reasonably capable of supporting the inferences required to acquit the accused” – See paragraphs 47 to 91.
Criminal Law – Topic 5045
Appeals – Indictable offences – Dismissal of appeal if no prejudice, substantial wrong or miscarriage results – What constitutes a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice – [See
Criminal Law – Topic 204
].
Cases Noticed:
R. v. Pétel (C.), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 3; 162 N.R. 137; 59 Q.A.C. 81, refd to. [paras. 25, 219].
R. v. Lavallee, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 852; 108 N.R. 321; 67 Man.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [paras. 26, 139].
R. v. McConnell (L.) et al., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 1075; 196 N.R. 307; 184 A.R. 117; 122 W.A.C. 117, reving. (1995), 169 A.R. 321; 97 W.A.C. 321; 32 Alta. L.R.(3d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 34, 168].
R. v. Vaillancourt (1999), 136 C.C.C.(3d) 530 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].
R. v. Lifchus (W.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320; 216 N.R. 215; 118 Man.R.(2d) 218; 149 W.A.C. 218, refd to. [para. 37].
R. v. Reilly, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 396; 55 N.R. 274; 6 O.A.C. 88, refd to. [para. 41].
R. v. Charlebois (P.), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 674; 261 N.R. 239, refd to. [paras. 41, 232].
R. v. Starr (R.D.), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 144; 258 N.R. 250; 148 Man.R.(2d) 161; 224 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 42].
R. v. Beauchamp (A.), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 720; 262 N.R. 119, refd to. [para. 42].
R. v. Russell (M.E.), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 731; 261 N.R. 339; 266 A.R. 379; 228 W.A.C. 379, refd to. [para. 42].
R. v. Avetysan (A.), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 745; 262 N.R. 96; 195 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 338; 586 A.P.R. 338, refd to. [para. 42].
R. v. Osolin, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 595; 162 N.R. 1; 38 B.C.A.C. 81; 62 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [paras. 48, 156].
R. v. Park (D.G.), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 836; 183 N.R. 81; 169 A.R. 241; 97 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [paras. 48, 157].
R. v. Davis (G.N.), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 759; 248 N.R. 44; 182 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 78; 554 A.P.R. 78, refd to. [paras. 48, 160].
R. v. Wu, [1934] S.C.R. 609, refd to. [paras. 49, 147].
R. v. Squire, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 13; 10 N.R. 25, refd to. [paras. 49, 149].
R. v. Pappajohn, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 120; 32 N.R. 104, refd to. [paras. 49, 152].
R. v. Finta, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 701; 165 N.R. 1; 70 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [paras. 49, 168].
R. v. Latimer (R.W.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 3; 264 N.R. 99; 203 Sask.R. 1; 240 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [paras. 51, 168].
R. v. Schwartz, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 443; 88 N.R. 90; 56 Man.R.(2d) 92, refd to. [para. 52].
R. v. Ewanchuk (S.B.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 330; 235 N.R. 323; 232 A.R. 1; 195 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [paras. 54, 160].
R. v. Bulmer – see R. v. Laybourn, Bulmer and Illingworth.
R. v. Laybourn, Bulmer and Illingworth, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 782; 75 N.R. 271, refd to. [paras. 54, 154].
R. v. Esau (A.J.), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 777; 214 N.R. 241, refd to. [paras. 57, 160].
R. v. Robinson (D.), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 683; 194 N.R. 181; 72 B.C.A.C. 161; 119 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [paras. 57, 168].
R. v. Lemky (T.R.), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 757; 194 N.R. 1; 73 B.C.A.C. 1; 120 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [paras. 57, 168].
R. v. Ruzic (M.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 687; 268 N.R. 1; 145 O.A.C. 235, refd to. [paras. 57, 168].
R. v. Thibert (N.E.), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 37; 192 N.R. 1; 178 A.R. 321; 110 W.A.C. 321, refd to. [paras. 57, 169].
R. v. Brisson, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 227; 44 N.R. 1, refd to. [paras. 57, 168].
R. v. Hebert (D.M.), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 272; 197 N.R. 277; 77 B.C.A.C. 1; 126 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [paras. 57, 168].
R. v. Parnerkar, [1974] S.C.R. 449, refd to. [paras. 59, 149].
R. v. Perka, Nelson, Hines and Johnson, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 232; 55 N.R. 1, refd to. [paras. 71, 169].
R. v. Kelsey, [1953] 1 S.C.R. 220, refd to. [paras. 73, 152].
R. v. Workman, [1963] S.C.R. 266, refd to. [paras. 73, 152].
R. v. Robertson, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 918; 75 N.R. 6; 20 O.A.C. 200, refd to. [paras. 80, 144].
R. v. Arcuri (G.), [2001] 2 S.C.R. 828; 274 N.R. 274; 150 O.A.C. 126, refd to. [paras. 83, 189].
Commonwealth v. Webster (1850), 59 Mass. (5 Cush.) 295, refd to. [para. 88].
Metropolitan Railway Co. v. Jackson (1877), 3 App. Cas. 193 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 91].
R. v. Biniaris (J.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 381; 252 N.R. 204; 134 B.C.A.C. 161; 219 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 141].
Woolmington v. Director of Public Prosecutions, [1935] A.C. 462 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 145].
Mancini v. Director of Public Prosecutions, [1942] A.C. 1 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 145].
Holmes v. Director of Public Prosecutions, [1946] A.C. 588 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 145].
R. v. Lobell, [1957] 1 Q.B. 547 (C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 146].
R. v. Latour, [1951] S.C.R. 19, refd to. [para. 147].
R. v. Proudlock, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 525; 24 N.R. 199, refd to. [para. 147].
R. v. Tripodi, [1955] S.C.R. 438, refd to. [para. 148].
R. v. Nelson, [1968] 2 C.C.C. 179 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 148].
R. v. Morgentaler, [1976] 1 S.C.R. 616; 4 N.R. 277, refd to. [para. 149].
R. v. Alward and Mooney, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 559; 16 N.R. 127; 18 N.B.R.(2d) 97; 26 A.P.R. 97, refd to. [para. 149].
R. v. Linney, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 646; 13 N.R. 217, refd to. [para. 149].
R. v. Mazza, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 907; 21 N.R. 271, refd to. [para. 149].
R. v. Landry, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 552; 26 N.R. 54, refd to. [para. 149].
R. v. Olbey, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1008; 30 N.R. 152, refd to. [para. 149].
R. v. Louison, [1975] 6 W.W.R. 289; 26 N.R. 4 (Sask. C.A.), affd. [1979] 1 S.C.R. 100; 26 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 149].
R. v. Kwaku Mensah, [1946] A.C. 83 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 150].
R. v. Porritt, [1961] 1 W.L.R. 1372 (C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 150].
R. v. Leary, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 29; 13 N.R. 592, refd to. [para. 150].
R. v. Reddick (S.J.), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 1086; 122 N.R. 348; 47 O.A.C. 289, refd to. [para. 154].
R. v. Trottier (1981), 58 C.C.C.(2d) 289 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 154].
R. v. Cook (1985), 46 C.R.(3d) 129 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 154].
R. v. White (1986), 24 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 154].
R. v. Sansregret, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 570; 58 N.R. 123; 35 Man.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 159].
R. v. Dickson (A.L.), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 153; 163 N.R. 58, affing. (1993), 81 C.C.C.(3d) 224 (Y.T.C.A.), refd to. [para. 160].
R. v. Livermore (C.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 123; 189 N.R. 126; 87 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 160].
R. v. M.O., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 594; 261 N.R. 88; 137 O.A.C. 315, reving. (1999), 124 O.A.C. 201; 138 C.C.C.(3d) 476 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 160].
R. v. Silva (V.H.) and Harris (J.W.) (1994), 120 Sask.R. 139; 68 W.A.C. 139; 31 C.R.(4th) 361 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 160].
R. v. Rarru (H.S.) (No. 2) (1995), 60 B.C.A.C. 90; 99 W.A.C. 90 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 160].
R. v. Stolz (R.D.) (1997), 71 B.C.A.C. 127; 117 W.A.C. 127 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 160].
R. v. Seaboyer and Gayme, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 577; 128 N.R. 81; 48 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 167].
R. v. Malott (M.A.) (1996), 94 O.A.C. 31; 110 C.C.C.(3d) 499 (C.A.), affd. [1998] 1 S.C.R. 123; 222 N.R. 4; 106 O.A.C. 132, refd to. [para. 168].
R. v. Stewart (C.O.) (1995), 60 B.C.A.C. 245; 99 W.A.C. 245; 41 C.R.(4th) 102 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 168].
R. v. Caron (1998), 126 C.C.C.(3d) 84; 16 C.R.(5th) 276 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 168].
R. v. Fisk (F.E.) (1996), 77 B.C.A.C. 81; 126 W.A.C. 81; 108 C.C.C.(3d) 63 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 168].
R. v. Taillefer (B.) (1995), 100 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 40 C.R.(4th) 287 (Que. C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1996] 1 S.C.R. x; 199 N.R. 80, refd to. [para. 168].
R. v. McKinnon (1989), 33 O.A.C. 114; 70 C.R.(3d) 10 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 168].
R. v. Martin (1980), 53 C.C.C.(2d) 425 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 168].
R. v. McKay and White (1992), 12 B.C.A.C. 234; 23 W.A.C. 234; 13 C.R.(4th) 315 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 168].
R. v. Aalders, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 482; 154 N.R. 161; 55 Q.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 168].
R. v. Young, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 39; 36 N.R. 463, refd to. [para. 168].
R. v. Duclos, [1995] Q.J. No. 678 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 169].
R. v. Stone (B.T.), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 290; 239 N.R. 201; 123 B.C.A.C. 1; 201 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 169].
R. v. Daviault (H.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 63; 173 N.R. 1; 64 Q.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 169].
R. v. Parks, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 871; 140 N.R. 161; 55 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 169].
R. v. Sheridan, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 205, reving. (1990), 105 A.R. 122; 55 C.C.C.(3d) 313 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 169].
R. v. Bergstrom, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 539; 36 N.R. 451; 9 Man.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 169].
R. v. Murray (E.E.) (1994), 73 O.A.C. 321; 93 C.C.C.(3d) 70 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].
R. v. Bazinet (1986), 14 O.A.C. 15; 25 C.C.C.(3d) 273 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 169].
R. v. Faid, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 265; 46 N.R. 461; 42 A.R. 308, refd to. [para. 169].
R. v. Gee, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 286; 43 N.R. 128; 38 A.R. 106, refd to. [para. 169].
R. v. Holmes, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 914; 85 N.R. 21; 27 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 172].
R. v. Bernard, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 833; 90 N.R. 321; 32 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 178].
R. v. Charemski (J.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 679; 224 N.R. 120; 108 O.A.C. 126, refd to. [para. 187].
United States of America v. Shephard, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 1067; 9 N.R. 215, refd to. [para. 187].
R. v. Mezzo, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 802; 68 N.R. 1; 43 Man.R.(2d) 161, refd to. [para. 187].
R. v. Monteleone, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 154; 78 N.R. 377; 23 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 187].
R. v. Litchfield, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 333; 161 N.R. 161; 145 A.R. 321; 55 W.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 189].
R. v. Skogman, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 93; 54 N.R. 34, refd to. [para. 190].
R. v. Collins (M.E.) and Pelfrey (W.D.) (1993), 60 O.A.C. 81; 79 C.C.C.(3d) 204 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 191].
R. v. Find (K.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 863; 269 N.R. 149; 146 O.A.C. 236, refd to. [para. 193].
R. v. Pan (R.W.); R. v. Sawyer (B.) (2001), 270 N.R. 317; 147 O.A.C. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 193].
R. v. R.M.G., [1996] 3 S.C.R. 362; 202 N.R. 1; 81 B.C.A.C. 81; 132 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 193].
Paccar of Canada Ltd. v. Canadian Association of Industrial, Mechanical and Allied Workers, Local 14, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 983; 102 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 216].
Planet Development Corp. and Lester (W.W.) (1978) Ltd. v. United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry in the United States and Canada, Local 740, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 644; 123 N.R. 241; 88 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 15; 274 A.P.R. 15, refd to. [para. 216].
Pointe-Claire (Ville) v. Syndicat des employées et employés professionnels-les et de bureau, section locale 57 (S.E.P.B. – U.I.E.P.B. – C.T.C. – F.T.Q.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 1015; 211 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 216].
Canada Safeway Ltd. v. Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 454 and Hardy, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1079; 226 N.R. 319; 168 Sask.R. 104; 173 W.A.C. 104, refd to. [para. 216].
Ajax (Town) v. National Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Local 222 et al. (1998), 113 O.A.C. 188; 41 O.R.(3d) 426 (C.A.), affd. [2000] 1 S.C.R. 538; 253 N.R. 223; 133 O.A.C. 43, refd to. [para. 216].
Ivanhoe Inc. et al. v. United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 500 et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 565; 272 N.R. 201, refd to. [para. 216].
Sept-Iles (Ville) v. Syndicat canadien de la fonction publique, section local 2589 et al. (2001), 272 N.R. 327 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 216].
Centre communautaire juridique de l’Estrie v. Sherbrooke (Ville) et al., [1996] 3 S.C.R. 84; 201 N.R. 61, refd to. [para. 216].
Board of Education of Toronto v. Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation District 15 et al., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 487; 208 N.R. 245; 98 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 216].
Battlefords and District Co-operatives Ltd. v. Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 544, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1118; 226 N.R. 143; 168 Sask.R. 151; 173 W.A.C. 151, refd to. [para. 216].
Nanaimo (City) v. Rascal Trucking Ltd. et al., [2000] 1 S.C.R. 342; 251 N.R. 42; 132 B.C.A.C. 298; 215 W.A.C. 298, refd to. [para. 216].
R. v. Hibbert (L.), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 973; 184 N.R. 165; 84 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 240].
Statutes Noticed:
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 34(2) [para. 20]; sect. 686(1)(a)(ii), sect. 686(1)(b)(iii) [paras. 20, 133].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Braithwaite, W.J., Developments in Criminal Law and Procedure: The 1979-80 Term (1981), 2 Supreme Court L.R. 177, p. 230 [para. 151].
Keane, Adrian, The Modern Law of Evidence (5th Ed. 2000), p. 37 [para. 71].
McCormick on Evidence (5th Ed. 1999), p. 641 [para. 88].
Roach, Kent, Criminal Law (2nd Ed. 2000), p. 247 [para. 168].
Sopinka, John, Lederman, Sidney N., and Bryant, Alan W., The Law of Evidence in Canada (2nd Ed. 1999), pp. 39 [para. 88]; 150 [para. 199]; 151 [paras. 162, 170]; 152 [paras. 162, 170, 171]; 153 [paras. 162, 170].
Stuart, Don, Canadian Criminal Law: A Treatise (3rd Ed. 1995), p. 260 [para. 155].
Watt, David, Watt’s Manual of Criminal Evidence (2001), para. 8.0 [para. 88].
Weiser, Irit, The Presumption of Innocence in Section 11(d) of the Charter and Persuasive and Evidential Burdens (1988-89), 31 Crim. L.Q. 318, p. 344 [para. 146].
Williams, Glanville, Textbook of Criminal Law (1982), pp. 52 to 59 [para. 146]; 119 [para. 199].
Williams, Glanville, The Proof of Guilt (3rd Ed. 1963), p. 36 [para. 150].
Williams, John M., Mistake of Fact: The Legacy of Pappajohn v. The Queen (1985), 63 Can. Bar Rev. 597, pp. 611, 612, 617 [para. 155].
Counsel:
Lori Renée Weitzman and Manon Ouimet, for the appellant;
Christian Gauthier and Louis Gélinas, for the respondent;
Bernard Laprade and François Lacasse, for the intervenor, Attorney General of Canada;
Michael Bernstein, for the intervenor, Attorney General for Ontario.
Solicitors of Record:
Attorney General of Quebec, Montreal, Quebec, for the appellant;
Pasquin, Bibeau, Brouillard, Gariepy & Associés, Montreal, Quebec, for the respondent;
Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervenor, Attorney General of Canada;
Attorney General for Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, Attorney General for Ontario.
This appeal was heard on April 18, 2001, before McLachlin, C.J.C., L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.
On March 21, 2002, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official languages and the following opinions were filed:
McLachlin, C.J.C., and Bastarache, J. (L’Heureux-Dubé and LeBel, JJ., concurring) – see paragraphs 1 to 126;
Binnie, J. (Gonthier, J., concurring) – see paragraphs 127 to 131;
Arbour, J. (Iacobucci and Major, JJ., concurring), dissenting – see paragraphs 132 to 243.
