Corporation Professionnelle des Médecins du Québec v. Thibault, (1988) 84 N.R. 247 (SCC)

• Judge: Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Lamer, Wilson, Le Dain and La Forest, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: February 25, 1988
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1988), 84 N.R. 247 (SCC);[1988] 1 SCR 1033;1988 CanLII 32 (SCC);40 CRR 80;42 CCC (3d) 1;63 CR (3d) 273

Corp. Prof. Médecins Qué. v. Thibault (1988), 84 N.R. 247 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Antoine Thibault v. Corporation Professionnelle des Medecins du Quebec et Le Procureur General du Quebec et le Procureur General du Canada

(No. 19423)

Indexed As: Corporation Professionnelle des Médecins du Québec v. Thibault

Supreme Court of Canada

Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Lamer, Wilson, Le Dain and La Forest, JJ.

May 26, 1988.

Summary:

The Corporation Professionnelle des Médecins du Québec brought charges against Thibault for unlawfully practising medicine contrary to the Medical Act (Que.). Thibault was acquitted in the Court of Sessions of the Peace (Que.). The Corporation appealed by way of trial de novo under s. 75 of the Summary Convictions Act, R.S.Q. 1977, c. P-15.

The Quebec Superior Court dismissed the appeal. The Corporation appealed.

The Quebec Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the acquittal and referred the matter to the Superior Court for a trial de novo. Thibault appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the acquittal. The court held firstly that a prosecutor had a right under s. 75 of the Summary Convictions Act to appeal from an acquittal by way of trial de novo. The court held however that a de novo appeal by a prosecutor from an acquittal is contrary to s. 11(h) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the right not to be tried twice for the same offence). The court held that s. 75 was of no force and effect to the extent that it allowed a prosecutor or complainant to appeal an acquittal by way of trial de novo.

Civil Rights - Topic 8305.1

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Section 11 - Thibault was acquitted of unlawfully practising medicine - In 1981 the complainant appealed by way of trial de novo under s. 75 of the Summary Convictions Act - In 1988 the Supreme Court of Canada held that a trial de novo was barred by s. 11(h) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the right not to be tried twice for the same offence) - The court rejected the argument that the Charter was inapplicable because it was not in effect in 1981 - The court held that what matters is that the Charter was in effect at the time Thibault sought to raise the plea of autrefois acquit - See paragraphs 26 to 27.

Civil Rights - Topic 8404

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Criminal proceedings - Double jeopardy - Summary conviction matters - The Summary Convictions Act, R.S.Q. 1977, c. P-15, s. 75 provided for a de novo appeal by an aggrieved party from a conviction or acquittal - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 75 was contrary to s. 11(h) of the Charter (the right not to be tried twice for the same offence) and of no force and effect to the extent that it gave a prosecutor or complainant the right to appeal an acquittal by way of trial de novo - The court noted, inter alia, that s. 75 in effect barred a plea of autrefois acquit because it authorized a prosecutor to repeat a trial as part of an appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 8474

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Precedent - Bill of Rights cases - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "judicial interpretation of the rights listed in the Canadian Bill of Rights is not conclusive where a court is required to define the scope of the guarantees conferred by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" - See paragraph 19.

Civil Rights - Topic 8549

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Particular phrases - Finally acquitted - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the meaning of the phrase "finally acquitted" as it was used in s. 11(h) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - See paragraph 24.

Trials - Topic 1192

Summary convictions - Appeals - Trial de novo - [See Trials - Topic 1241 below].

Trials - Topic 1192

Summary convictions - Appeals - Trial de novo - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8404 above].

Trials - Topic 1241

Summary convictions - Appeals - Stated case - General - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 75 of the Summary Convictions Act, R.S.Q. 1977, c. P-15, conferred on a prosecutor the right to appeal from an acquittal by way of trial de novo - The court noted, however, that s. 75 did not apply to appeals under the Act by way of stated case - See paragraphs 9 to 11.

Words and Phrases

Finally acquitted - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the meaning of this phrase as it was used in s. 11(h) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - See paragraph 24.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Wigglesworth, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 541; 81 N.R. 161; 61 Sask.R. 105; 24 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Jordan (1971), 2 N.S.R.(2d) 594; 1 C.C.C.(2d) 385, dist. [para. 18].

R. v. McCaugherty, [1971] 2 W.W.R. 579 (Alta. Dist. Ct.), dist. [para. 19].

R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; [1985] 3 W.W.R. 481; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 321; 37 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97; 85 C.L.L.C. 14,023; 13 C.R.R. 64, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Therens, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 613; 40 Sask.R. 122; 59 N.R. 122; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 45 C.R.(3d) 97; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 655; [1985] 4 W.W.R. 286; 32 M.V.R. 153, refd to. [para. 19].

Dupont v. Rheault, [1987] R.J.Q. 1121, not folld. [para. 20].

R. v. Morgentaler, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30; 82 N.R. 1; 26 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335; 26 D.L.R. (4th) 200; 50 C.R.(3d) 1; 24 C.C.C. (3d) 321; 19 C.R.R. 308, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Dubois, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 350; 62 N.R. 50; 66 A.R. 202; 48 C.R.(3d) 193; 22 C.C.C.(3d) 513; [1986] 1 W.W.R. 193; 41 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97; 18 C.R.R. 1; 23 D.L.R.(4th) 503, refd to. [para. 26].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Bill of Rights, R.S.C. 1970, App. III, sect. 2(e) [para. 18].

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, sect. 1 [para. 25]; sect. 2, sect. 7, sect. 8, sect. 9, sect. 10, sect. 11, sect. 12, sect. 13, sect. 14, sect. 15 [paras. 8, 28]; sect. 11(h) [para. 12 et seq.]; sect. 33 [para. 28].

Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, R.S.Q. 1977, c. C-12, sect. 1, sect. 23, sect. 33 [para. 29]; sect. 37.1 [paras. 5, 15, 29].

Constitution Act, 1982, sect. 52 [para. 25].

Medical Act, S.Q. 1973, c. 46 [para. 2].

Summary Convictions Act, R.S.Q. 1977, c. P-15, sect. 75 [para. 1 et seq.]; sect. 78 [para. 17 et seq.]; sect. 90 [para. 10]; sect. 132 [paras. 8, 28].

Counsel:

Guy Bertrand and Isabelle Hudon, for the appellant;

Pierre Laurin and Pierre Lachance, for the respondent;

Paul Monty and Lyne Morais, for the intervener the Attorney General of Quebec;

Andre Bluteau and Rene Leblanc, for the Attorney General of Canada.

Solicitors of Record:

Tremblay, Bertrand, Morisset, Bois & Mignault, Ste-Foy, Quebec, for the appellant;

Flynn, Rivard, Quebec, Quebec, for the respondent;

Paul Monty and Lyne Morais, Ste-Foy, Quebec, for the intervener the Attorney General of Quebec;

Frank Iacobucci, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervener the Attorney General of Canada.

This appeal was heard on February 25, 1988, before Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Lamer, Wilson, Le Dain and La Forest, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official languages by Lamer, J., on May 26, 1988.

Estey, J., took no part in the judgment.