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
Lafrance v. R., [1975] 2 S.C.R. 201 (1973)
Supreme Court of Canada
Lafrance v. R., [1975] 2 S.C.R. 201Date: 1973-08-27Leo Lafrance (Plaintiff) Appellant;andHer 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...Try vLex for FREE for 3 days
Access legal information from Canada including:
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