R. v. Lifchus (W.) (1997), 216 N.R. 215 (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: [1997] N.R. TBEd. SE.004
Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. William Lifchus (respondent)
(File No. 25404)
Indexed As: R. v. Lifchus (W.)
Supreme Court of Canada
Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest,
L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier,
Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and
Major, JJ.
September 18, 1997.
Summary:
The accused was convicted of one count of fraud. He appealed, asserting that the trial judge erroneously charged the jury concerning the Crown’s burden of proof.
The Manitoba Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at 110 Man.R.(2d) 199; 118 W.A.C. 199, allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial. The Crown appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order directing a new trial.
Criminal Law – Topic 4351
Procedure – Jury charge – Directions regarding burden of proof and reasonable doubt – The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the content of instructions to be given to a jury respecting the Crown’s burden of proof and reasonable doubt – The court stated that the jury should be given a definition of reasonable doubt and suggested a form of the correct instructions – See paragraphs 15 to 41.
Criminal Law – Topic 4351
Procedure – Jury charge – Directions regarding burden of proof and reasonable doubt – The accused was charged with fraud – The trial judge, in an otherwise model jury charge, instructed the jury respecting the Crown’s burden of proof, stating that reasonable doubt meant nothing more than the “everyday sense” of the words – The jury convicted the accused – The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that a new trial was warranted – The jury was misdirected as to the meaning of “reasonable doubt”, the most fundamental concept known to criminal law – Accordingly, it could not be said that the jury would inevitably have convicted and the proviso in s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code was not applicable – See paragraphs 45 to 46.
Criminal Law – Topic 4950
Appeals – Indictable offences – New trials – Grounds – Misdirection by trial judge – General – [See second
Criminal Law – Topic 4351
].
Criminal Law – Topic 4960
Appeals – Indictable offences – New trials – Grounds – Error respecting burden of proof – [See second
Criminal Law – Topic 4351
].
Criminal Law – Topic 5041
Appeals – Indictable offences – Dismissal of appeal if no prejudice, substantial wrong or miscarriage results – Where jury charge incomplete or in error – [See second
Criminal Law – Topic 4351
].
Cases Noticed:
R. v. Brydon (J.L.) (1995), 55 B.C.A.C. 6; 90 W.A.C. 6; 95 C.C.C.(3d) 509 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].
Victor v. Nebraska (1994), 127 L.Ed.2d 583 (U.S. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 17].
R. v. Tyhurst (J.S.) (1992), 21 B.C.A.C. 218; 37 W.A.C. 218; 79 C.C.C.(3d) 238 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].
R. v. Jenkins (E.) et al. (1996), 90 O.A.C. 263; 107 C.C.C.(3d) 440 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].
R. v. Hrynyk (1948), 93 C.C.C. 100 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].
R. v. Brydon (J.L.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 253; 188 N.R. 321; 65 B.C.A.C. 81; 106 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 21].
R. v. Girard (1996), 109 C.C.C.(3d) 545 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].
Boucher v. R., [1955] S.C.R. 16, refd to. [para. 26].
R. v. Bergeron (1996), 109 C.C.C.(3d) 571 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].
R. v. Ford (1991), 12 W.C.B.(2d) 576 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].
R. v. D.W., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742; 122 N.R. 277; 46 O.A.C. 352; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 397; 3 C.R.(4th) 302, refd to. [para. 41].
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. [para. 49].
Colpitts v. R., [1965] S.C.R. 739, refd to. [para. 49].
Statutes Noticed:
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 686(1)(b)(iii) [para. 45].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Wigmore, John Henry, Evidence in Trials at Common Law (Chadbourne Rev. 1981), vol. 9, § 2497, pp. 412 to 415 [para. 16].
Williams, Glanville, Criminal Law: The General Part (2nd Ed. 1961), p. 873 [para. 16].
Williams, Glanville, Textbook of Criminal Law (2nd Ed. 1983), p. 43 [para. 16].
Counsel:
Gregg Lawlor, for the appellant;
Heather Leonoff, Q.C., and Timothy Killeen, for the respondent.
Solicitors of Record:
Manitoba Justice, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the appellant;
Wolch, Pinx, Tapper, Scurfield, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard on May 29, 1997, before Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. On September 18, 1997, the decision of the court was delivered in both official languages and the following opinions were filed:
Cory, J. (Lamer, C.J.C., Sopinka, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., concurring) – see paragraphs 1 to 47;
L’Heureux-Dubé, J., concurring (La Forest and Gonthier, JJ., concurring) – see paragraphs 48 to 50.
