Lafrance v. R., [1975] 2 S.C.R. 201 (1973)

Supreme Court of Canada, Supreme Court of Canada (August 27, 1973)


Permanent Link: http://ca.vlex.com/vid/lafrance-v-r-37663126
Id. vLex: VLEX-37663126

Acceda a este documento
y pruebe vLex GRATIS durante 3 días

Sponsored Ads:


Extract:

Lafrance v. R., [1975] 2 S.C.R. 201 (1973)

Supreme Court of Canada

Lafrance v. R., [1975] 2 S.C.R. 201

Date: 1973-08-27

Leo Lafrance (Plaintiff) Appellant;

and

Her Majesty The Queen (Defendant) Respondent.

1972: December 11; 1973: August 27.

Present: Fauteux C.J. and Abbott, Martland, Judson, Ritchie, Hall, Spence, Pigeon and Laskin JJ.

ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO.

Criminal Law-Theft of automobile-Joy-riding-Whether included offence-Whether offences mutually exclusive-Elements of theft-Criminal Code, ss. 283, 294, 295.

Appellant had been drinking at his home in North Bay with some friends. Around midnight they decided to deliver some stereo tapes and lacking transport went to the home of one Trudel who told them that he would get them a ride. Trudel took them to the motel parking lot next to his home, found a car with the keys in it, drove appellant and his friends around and later returned to his home. Appellant then took the car intending to go for a drive alone and then return the car to the motel. While returning to North Bay he was stopped by a police constable and later charged with the theft of the car under s. 280 (now s. 294) of the Criminal Code. Appellant admitted at trial that Trudel had indicated that the car was stolen but was acquitted on the basis of the intention of both Trudel and himself to return the car and because the offence of joy-riding, s. 281 (now s. 295) of the Criminal Code, was not an included offence. The Court of Appeal decided however that all the elements of theft as defined in s. 269 (now s. 283) of the Criminal Code were present.

Held (Hall, Spence and Laskin JJ. dissenting): The appeal should be dismissed.

Per Fauteux C.J.: The distinction between the offences of theft and joy-riding makes them mutually exclusive and permits no verdict other than a verdict on the offence actually charged. However the trial judge erred in holding that there was no evidence on which to enter a conviction for theft.

Per Abbott, Mar...



Activate your free trial now

Make your order

Need help? Contact us

Try vLex for FREE for 3 days

Access legal information from Canada including:

  • Legal Books and Journals
  • Case Law
  • Legislation
  • News and Business

Try vLex without any commitment for 3 days and see why you need it.

3

days of Free Access



If you are already a vLex customer, Access Here

Sponsored Ads:


Other documents:
Roger Gauthier Inc c Canada 2006 FCA 404 2006 | 4-H Crews Do Spring Cleaning | Kids Get Ho-Ho-Horrifying Letters Back From Santa | Eli Lilly and Co. c. Novopharm Ltd. (1998) | arrete du 9 avril 1991 fixant le nombre des places offertes au titre de l'annee 1991 au concours d'admission e... | koninklijk besluit tot wijziging van het koninklijk besluit van 8 oktober 1998 houdende organisatie van het koninkl... | arrete du 9 decembre 2005 portant extension d'un accord regional (corse) conclu dans le cadre de la convention collective nationale des entreprises d'architect... | décision nº 51118 - conseil d'etat, january 20, 1984 | Notifikation FRITZ Charlotte | avis rectificatif au moniteur belge du 28 juin 2007, page 35628, avis 31247, dans l'acte n 07/1173, concernant ... | Koninklijk besluit tot wijziging van het koninklijk besluit van 14 september 1984 tot vaststelling van de nomenclatuur van... | sentenza nº 306 of t.a.r - marche ancona of may 07 2003