R. v. Prince (1986), 70 N.R. 119 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
…………………….
R. v. Prince
Indexed As: R. v. Prince
Supreme Court of Canada
Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer, Le Dain and La Forest, JJ.
November 6, 1986.
Summary:
The accused stabbed a woman in the abdomen. Several days later the victim gave premature birth to a child which died shortly thereafter. The accused was convicted of causing bodily harm to the woman. Subsequently she was charged with manslaughter for causing the death of the child. The accused applied to have a stay of proceedings entered in respect to the manslaughter indictment based on the Kienapple principle.
The Manitoba County Court, in a decision unreported in this series of reports, dismissed the application. The accused then applied for an order of certiorari quashing the indictment.
The Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench, in a decision unreported in this series of reports, dismissed the application. The accused appealed.
The Manitoba Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at 27 Man.R.(2d) 63, allowed the accused’s appeal and quashed the manslaughter indictment. The Crown appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada, in the decision reported below, allowed the appeal, reversed the decision of the Manitoba Court of Appeal and remitted the matter for trial on the manslaughter indictment. The court held that where crimes of personal violence are concerned the Kienapple rule against multiple conviction is inapplicable when the convictions relate to different victims.
Criminal Law – Topic 76
Res judicata – Multiple convictions for same subject matter precluded – General principles – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that there must be a sufficient nexus between the facts and the offences which form the basis of two or more charges before the rule against multiple convictions can be invoked – See paragraphs 17 to 24.
Criminal Law – Topic 76
Res judicata – Multiple convictions for same subject matter precluded – General principles – The Supreme Court of Canada rejected the common element test (that an act which constitutes an element of an offence can only be used to sustain a single conviction) as the basis for attracting the Kienapple principle – The court stated that the test must focus on the presence or absence of additional or distinguishing elements – The court stated that there are three ways to determine sufficient correspondence between elements: 1) where an element may be a particularization of another element; 2) Where more than one method is embodied in more than one offence, to prove a single delict; and 3) where Parliament deems a particular element to be satisfied by proof of a different nature because of social policy or inherent difficulties of proof – See paragraphs 27 to 39.
Criminal Law – Topic 77
Res judicata – Multiple convictions for same subject matter precluded – Procedure – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that it is “normally appropriate for a superior court to decline to grant a prerogative remedy on an interlocutory application in respect of the rule against multiple convictions” – The court stated that “it would generally be preferable for superior courts to decline to consider the merits of a Kienapple argument on an interlocutory application” – See paragraph 50.
Criminal Law – Topic 82
Res judicata – Multiple convictions for same subject matter precluded – Bars to raising the defence – The accused stabbed a woman in the abdomen – Later the victim gave premature birth to a child who died – The accused was convicted of causing bodily harm to the woman – Subsequently the accused was charged with manslaughter for causing the death of the child – The accused argued the manslaughter indictment should be quashed pursuant to the Kienapple principle – The Supreme Court of Canada ordered the case to proceed to trial – The court held that “in so far as crimes of personal violence are concerned, the rule against multiple convictions is inapplicable when the convictions relate to different victims”, although the charges result from the same cause, matter or delict – See paragraphs 40 to 49.
Cases Noticed:
R. v. Kienapple, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729; 1 N.R. 322; 15 C.C.C.(2d) 524; 26 C.R.N.S. 1; 44 D.L.R.(3d) 351, dist. [paras. 1 et seq.].
R. v. Hagenlocher (1981), 65 C.C.C.(2d) 101 (Man. C.A.), affd. [1982] 2 S.C.R. 531; 44 N.R. 91; 18 Man.R.(2d) 361, consd. [para. 5].
R. v. Quon, [1948] S.C.R. 508, refd to. [para. 14].
R. v. Siggins (1960), 127 C.C.C. 409 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].
Connelly v. D.P.P., [1964] A.C. 1254 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 15].
R. v. Cote, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 303; 8 N.R. 1, consd. [para. 18].
R. v. Hewson, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 82; 24 N.R. 224; 42 C.C.C.(2d) 507; 5 C.R.(3d) 155; 89 D.L.R.(3d) 573, refd to. [para. 18].
R. v. Boyce (1976), 23 C.C.C.(2d) 16 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].
R. v. Allison and Dinel (1983), 33 C.R.(3d) 333 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].
R. v. McKinney, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 401; 31 N.R. 564; 2 Man.R.(2d) 400; affirming 46 C.C.C.(2d) 566; 31 N.R. 567; 2 Man.R.(2d) 403, refd to. [para. 23].
R. v. Logeman (1978), 5 C.R.(3d) 219 (B.C.C.A.), apprd. [para. 24].
R. v. Lecky (1978), 38 N.S.R.(2d) 276; 69 A.P.R. 276; 42 C.C.C.(2d) 406 (N.S.Co.Ct.), apprd. [para. 24].
R. v. Earle (1980), 24 Nfld. & P.E.I. R. 65; 65 A.P.R. 65 (Nfld. C.A.), apprd. [para. 24].
R. v. Pinkerton (1979), 46 C.C.C.(2d) 284 (B.C.C.A.), apprd. [para. 24].
R. v. Pere Gregoire de la Trinite (1980), 60 C.C.C.(2d) 542 (Que. C.A.), apprd. [para. 24].
R. v. Harrison (1978), 7 C.R.(3d) 32 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].
R. v. Taylor (1979), 21 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 397; 56 A.P.R. 397; 48 C.C.C.(2d) 523 (Nfld. C.A.), refd. to [para. 26].
R. v. Krug, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 255; 62 N.R. 263; 21 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 48 C.R.(3d) 97; 21 D.L.R.(4th) 161, consd. [para. 29].
R. v. Langevin (1979), 47 C.C.C.(2d) 138 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].
R. v. McGuigan, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 284; 40 N.R. 499; 66 C.C.C.(2d) 97; 26 C.R.(3d) 289; 134 D.L.R.(3d) 625, refd to. [para. 31].
R. v. Loyer and Blouin, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 631; 21 N.R. 181; 40 C.C.C.(2d) 291; 85 D.L.R.(3d) 101, refd to. [para. 33].
R. v. Gushue (1976), 32 C.C.C.(2d) 189 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].
R. v. Terlecki, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 483; 64 N.R. 233; 65 A.R. 401, refd to. [para. 38].
R. v. Birmingham and Taylor (1976), 34 C.C.C.(2d) 386 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 48].
Statutes Noticed:
Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 11 [para. 14]; sect. 205(5)(a) [para. 43]; sect. 206(2) [para. 40]; sect. 589 [para. 4].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Beliveau, Pierre et Diane Labreche, L’elargissement du concept de “double jeopardy” en droit penal canadien: de bis puniri a bis vexari (1977), R. du B. 589 [para. 8].
Braithwaite, William J., Developments in Criminal Law and Procedure: The 1979-80 Term (1981), 2 Supreme Court L.R. 177 [para. 8].
Braithwaite, William J., Down to the Core of the Kienapple (1979), 9 C.R.(3d) 88 [para. 8].
Chasse, Kenneth L., A New Meaning for Res Judicata and its Potential Effect on Plea Bargaining (1974), 26 C.R.N.S. 20, pp. 20-21 [paras. 13, 14]; 48, 64 [para. 8].
Ewaschuk, E.G., The Rule Against Multiple Convictions and Abuse of Process (1975), 28 C.R.N.S. 28 [para. 8]; pp. 30 [para. 13]; 41 [para. 25].
Jordan, James C., Application and Limitations of the Rule Prohibiting Multiple Convictions: Kienapple v. The Queen to R. v. Prince (1984-85), 14 Man. L.J. 341 [para. 8]; pp. 347-348 [para. 13]; 356 [para. 14].
Klinck, Dennis R., “The Same Cause or Matter”: The Legacy of Kienapple (1983-84), 26 Crim. L.Q. 280 [para. 8], pp. 285 [para. 15]; 286 [para. 12]; 292 [para. 20]; 301-302 [para. 39].
Leonoff, Heather and David Deutscher, The Plea and Related Matters, In Criminal Procedure in Canada, edited by Vincent Del Buono (1982), pp. 229-262 [para. 8]; p. 261 [paras. 20, 38].
Mewett, Alan W., Nemo Bis Vexari (1973-74), 16 Crim. L.Q. 382 [para. 8]; pp. 383-384 [para. 25]; 385 [para. 13].
Salhany, Roger E., Canadian Criminal Procedure (4th Ed. 1984) [para. 8].
Sheppard, A.F., Criminal Law — Rule Against Multiple Convictions (1976), 54 Can.Bar Rev. 627 [paras. 8, 21]; pp. 635 [para. 13]; 638 [para. 20].
Counsel:
Stuart Whitley, for the appellant;
Barry Hart Sinder, for the respondent.
Solicitors of Record:
Department of the Attorney General, Winnipeg, for the appellant;
Nozick, Sinder & Associates, Winnipeg, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard on April 23, 1986, before Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer, Le Dain and La Forest, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The following decision of the court was delivered on November 6, 1986 by Dickson, C.J.C.
