R. v. Gardiner (1982), 43 N.R. 361 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
R. v. Gardiner
Indexed As: R. v. Gardiner
Supreme Court of Canada
Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Ritchie, Dickson, Estey, McIntyre and Chouinard, JJ.
August 9, 1982.
Summary:
The accused pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm. The Crown alleged that the circumstances of the crime were aggravated. The trial judge in sentencing the accused held that the Crown need only prove such facts on a balance of probabilities. The accused appealed. The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the Crown must prove aggravating facts beyond a reasonable doubt and remitted the matter to the trial judge to consider and report to the Court of Appeal whether the aggravating facts were established, which the trial court felt he could not do. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and reduced the sentence of the accused.
The Crown obtained leave from the Supreme Court of Canada to appeal and on the appeal the court raised the issue of its jurisdiction on sentencing.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal. The court (Laskin, C.J.C., dissenting, Estey and McIntyre, JJ., concurring) held that it had jurisdiction, not over the fitness of sentence, but over questions of law respecting sentencing. See paragraphs 2, 10 to 41. The court then held that the Crown was required to prove aggravating facts beyond a reasonable doubt. See paragraphs 2, 42 to 78.
Courts – Topic 3026
Supreme Court of Canada – Jurisdiction – General – The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the problem of construing the extent of its jurisdiction before determining that a liberal view of its jurisdiction should be adopted – See paragraphs 10 to 41.
Courts – Topic 3108
Supreme Court of Canada – Jurisdiction – Appeals from Provincial Courts – Criminal cases – Appeals against sentence – The Supreme Court of Canada held that its function was not to determine the fitness of a criminal sentence, but that it had jurisdiction to entertain appeals respecting questions of law arising from sentencing – See paragraphs 2, 10 to 41.
Criminal Law – Topic 5811
Sentencing – Sentencing procedure and rights of accused – Evidence of circumstances of crime – Burden of proof – The Supreme Court of Canada held that the burden on the Crown in proving the aggravating facts of a crime is beyond a reasonable doubt – See paragraphs 2, 42 to 78.
Criminal Law – Topic 5817
Sentencing – Sentencing procedure and rights of accused – Evidence – General – Hearsay – The Supreme Court of Canada held that hearsay evidence may be accepted on sentencing, where the trial judge thinks that it is creditable and trustworthy and noted that a trial judge traditionally has had wide latitude about the sources and types of evidence on which to base sentence – See paragraph 69.
Statutes – Topic 1624
Interpretation – Extrinsic aids – Other statutes – Prior statutes respecting same subject matter – The Supreme Court of Canada in construing the extent of its jurisdiction over sentencing under the Supreme Court Act and the Criminal Code of Canada considered prior statutes respecting the Supreme Court of Canada and its jurisdiction – See paragraphs 10 to 41.
Cases Noticed:
Lake Erie and Detroit River Rwy. Co. v. Marsh (1904), 35 S.C.R. 197, consd. [para. 16].
United States v. Link and Green, [1955] S.C.R. 183, consd. [para. 20].
Ottawa Electric Co. v. Brennan (1901), 31 S.C.R. 311, consd. [para. 20].
Furlan v. City of Montreal, [1947] S.C.R. 216, consd. [para. 20].
Chagnon v. Normand (1980), 16 S.C.R. 661, consd. [para. 20].
Cully v. Ferdais (1900), 30 S.C.R. 330, consd. [para. 20].
McKenzie v. Hiscock, [1967] S.C.R. 781, consd. [para. 20].
Goldhamer v. The King, [1924] S.C.R. 290, consd. [paras. 23, 87].
Goldhar v. The Queen, [1960] S.C.R. 60, consd. [paras. 26, 29, 85].
Re The Farm Products Marketing Act, [1957] S.C.R. 198, consd. [para. 27].
R. v. Hill (No. 2), [1977] 1 S.C.R. 827; 7 N.R. 373, consd. [paras. 29, 85].
Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. of Canada Ltd. et al. v. The Queen, [1956] S.C.R. 303, consd. [paras. 29, 88].
Parkes v. The Queen, [1956] S.C.R. 134, consd. [paras. 29, 104].
Smith v. The Queen, [1959] S.C.R. 638, consd. [paras. 29, 92].
Paul v. The Queen, [1960] S.C.R. 452, consd. [para. 29].
R. v. J. Alepin Frères Ltée, [1965] S.C.R. 359, consd. [paras. 29, 79, 90].
R. v. MacDonald, [1965] S.C.R. 831, consd. [paras. 29, 79, 107].
R. v. Zelensky, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 940; 21 N.R. 372, consd. [para. 32].
R. v. Lees, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 749; 27 N.R. 548, consd. [paras. 34, 91].
Thorson v. Attorney General of Canada, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 138; 1 N.R. 225, refd. to. [para. 37].
McNeil v. Nova Scotia Board of Censors, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 265; 19 N.R. 570; 25 N.S.R.(2d) 128; 24 A.P.R. 128, refd. to. [para. 37].
R. v. Gortag and Pirog, [1973] Crim. L.R. 648, consd. [para. 50].
Alberton Fisheries Ltd. v. R. (1944), 17 M.P.R. 457, consd. [para. 51].
R. v. Maitland, [1963] S.A.S.R. 332, consd. [para. 52].
Law v. Deed, [1970] S.A.S.R. 374, consd. [para. 53].
O’Malley v. French (1971-72), 2 S.A.S.R. 110, consd. [para. 54].
Weaver v. Samuels, [1971] S.A.S.R. 116, consd. [para. 55].
R. v. Thompson (1974-75), 11 S.A.S.R. 217, consd. [para. 55].
R. v. Stehbens (1976), 14 S.A.S.R. 240, consd. [para. 55].
R. v. O’Neill, [1979] 2 N.S.W.L.R. 582, consd. [para. 56].
Bierkowski v. Pearson (1971), 18 F.L.R. 110, consd. [para. 55].
Browne v. Smith (1974), 4 Aust. L.R. 114, consd. [para. 56].
R. v. Browne, [1950] N. Ire. L.R. 20, consd. [para. 57].
R. v. McKee, [1947] N. Ire. L.R. 27, consd. [para. 57].
R. v. Pinder (1923), 40 C.C.C. 272, consd. [para. 58].
R. v. Knight (1975), 27 C.C.C.(2d) 343, consd. [para. 59].
R. v. Parenteau (1980), 52 C.C.C.(2d) 188, consd. [para. 50].
R. v. Dimora (1978), 45 C.C.C.(2d) 96, consd. [para. 60].
R. v. Boileau and Lepine (1979), 50 C.C.C.(2d) 189, consd. [para. 60].
R. v. Davis and Fancie (1976), 15 N.S.R.(2d) 461; 14 A.P.R. 461, consd. [para. 61].
R. v. Taggart (1979), 1 Cr. App. R. (S) 144, consd. [para. 63].
Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241; 93 L. ed. 1337, (1949), dist. [para. 64].
Curr v. The Queen, [1972] S.C.R. 889, refd. to. [para. 65].
U.S. v. Fatico, 458 F. Supp 388 (1978), refd. to. [para. 65].
Gardiner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349; 51 L. ed.(2d) 393 (1977), refd. to. [para. 65].
Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153; 49 L. ed.(2d) 859 (1976), refd. to. [para. 65].
S. v. Manchester City Recorder, [1969] 3 All E.R. 1230, consd. [para. 73].
R. v. Proudlock, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 525; 24 N.R. 199, consd. [para. 75].
Dingwall v. J. Wharton (Shipping) Ltd., [1961] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 213, consd. [para. 76].
R. v. Warner, [1961] S.C.R. 144, refd. to. [para. 79].
Ernewein v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 639; 30 N.R. 316, consd. [para. 89].
R. v. Robinson, [1951] S.C.R. 522, consd. [para. 102].
Brusch v. The Queen, [1953] 1 S.C.R. 373, consd. [para. 102].
Poole v. The Queen, [1968] S.C.R. 381, consd. [para. 104].
Parkes v. The Queen, [1956] S.C.R. 768, consd. [para. 106].
Statutes Noticed:
British North America Act, 1867, sect. 101 – See paragraph 12.
Constitution Act, 1867 – See British North America Act 1867 above.
Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 605(1)(b), sect. 607 [para. 84]; sect. 618 [para. 81].
Supreme Court Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. S-19, sect. 41(1), sect. 41(3) [paras. 28, 81].
Supreme and Exchequer Court Act, 1875 (Can.), 38 Vict., c. 11, sect. 1 [para. 13]; sect. 15, sect. 49 [para. 15].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Laskin, The Role and Functions of Final Appellate Courts; The Supreme Court of Canada (1975), 53 Can. B. Rev. 469, 471 [para. 13].
Lederman, Thoughts on Reform of the Supreme Court of Canada (1970), 8 Alta. L. Rev. 1, 16-17 [para. 27].
Olah, Sentencing: The Last Frontier of Criminal Law (1980), 16 C.R.(3d) 97 [paras. 67, 72, 74].
Procedural Due Process at Judicial Sentencing For Felony (1968), 81 Aqrv. L. Rev. 821 [para. 65].
Russell, The Jurisdiction of The Supreme Court of Canada: Present Policy and A Programme for Reform (1968), 6 Osgood Hall L.J. 1 [paras. 19, 20, 25].
R. v. Stehbens Comment (1977), 1 Crim. L.J. 217 [para. 55].
R. v. Taggart and R. v. Miller Comment, [1980] Crim. L. Rev. 248 [para. 63].
Thomas, D.A., Principles of Sentencing (2nd Ed.), p. 366-367 [para. 1].
Counsel:
S. Casey Hill, for the appellant;
Clayton C. Ruby, for the respondent.
This case was heard on November 23, 1981, at Ottawa, Ontario, before LASKIN, C.J.C., MARTLAND, RITCHIE, DICKSON, ESTEY, McINTYRE AND CHOUINARD, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.
On August 9, 1982, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered and the following opinions were filed:
DICKSON, J. – see paragraphs 1 to 78;
LASKIN, C.J.C., dissenting – see paragraphs 79 to 115.
MARTLAND, RITCHIE and CHOUINARD, JJ., concurred with DISKSON, J.
ESTEY and McINTYRE, JJ., concurred with LASKIN, C.J.C.
