R. v. Arcangioli (G.), 1994 CanLII 107 (SCC)

JudgeCory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.
CourtSupreme Court (Canada)
Case DateJanuary 27, 1994
JurisdictionCanada (Federal)
Citations1994 CanLII 107 (SCC);(1994), 162 N.R. 280 (SCC);22 WCB (2d) 144;69 OAC 26;27 CR (4th) 1;[1994] 1 SCR 129;162 NR 280;[1994] SCJ No 5 (QL);[1994] ACS no 5;111 DLR (4th) 48;87 CCC (3d) 289;JE 94-241

R. v. Arcangioli (G.) (1994), 162 N.R. 280 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Giuseppe Arcangioli (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent)

(23380)

Indexed As: R. v. Arcangioli (G.)

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., Sopinka, Gonthier,

Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and

Major, JJ.

January 27, 1994.

Summary:

The accused was convicted of aggravated assault following a jury trial and was sen­tenced to four years' imprisonment. The accused appealed against conviction.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, Galligan, J.A., dissenting, dismissed the appeal. The accused appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.

Criminal Law - Topic 4393

Procedure - Jury charge - Failure of counsel to object - Effect of - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "trial counsel's failure to object to a jury charge is not determinative of the applicability of the Criminal Code's 'curative provision', s. 618(1)(b)(iii)" - See paragraph 38.

Criminal Law - Topic 5035

Appeals - Indictable offences - Dismissal of appeal if error resulted in no miscar­riage of justice - General - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4393 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5211

Evidence - Witnesses - Admissibility and relevancy - Flight of accused - An accused convicted of aggravated assault (stabbing) admitted common assault, but claimed a third party stabbed the victim - The accused fled the scene - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that it was not sufficient to instruct the jury that innocent men sometimes flee the crime scene - The trial judge should have directed the jury that the accused's flight was equally con­sistent with common assault as with ag­gravated assault - Fleeing the scene was, accordingly, incapable of supporting an inference of consciousness of guilt re­specting the aggravated assault charge - There was a danger that the jury could wrongly infer that the accused fled because he was guilty of stabbing the victim - See paragraph 49.

Criminal Law - Topic 5214.8

Evidence - Witnesses - Admissibility and relevancy - That crime committed by another - An accused charged with aggra­vated assault (stabbing) claimed that a third person did it - The accused adduced evidence (criminal record) that the third person had a propensity for violence and was connected with another stabbing one-half hour before the present stabbing - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the trial judge should have instructed the jury that they could consider the evidence in support of the accused's claim that the third person, not the accused, committed the stabbing - See paragraph 48.

Criminal Law - Topic 5316.1

Evidence - Witnesses - Inferences - Of guilt - From fleeing crime scene - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5211 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5419

Evidence - Witnesses - Criminal record - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5214.8 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5419.1

Evidence - Witnesses - Character evi­dence respecting - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the Crown was pre­cluded from adducing evidence of the accused's character unless the accused has put character in issue or the evidence is otherwise relevant (e.g. similar acts) - The evidence "is excluded on the ground that its prejudicial effect is apt to outweigh its probative value; the danger exists that a jury may convict on the basis of the ac­cused's reputation rather than on the basis of the evidence" - The court stated that the rule did not apply to character evi­dence respecting a third party witness - As long as it was relevant and not otherwise excluded by a rule of evidence, it was admissible - "Courts are reluctant to exclude evidence offered by an accused in his defence" - See paragraphs 25 to 31.

Criminal Law - Topic 5449

Evidence - Witnesses - Testimony re­specting the accused - Character of accused - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5419.1 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Scopelliti (1981), 63 C.C.C.(2d) 481 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. McMillan (1975), 23 C.C.C.(2d) 160 (C.A.), affd. [1977] 2 S.C.R. 824; 15 N.R. 20, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Williams (1985), 7 O.A.C. 201; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 356 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Yaeck (1991), 50 O.A.C. 29; 68 C.C.C.(3d) 545 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused, [1992] 1 S.C.R. xii; 139 N.R. 240; 56 O.A.C. 160, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Seaboyer and Gayme, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 577; 128 N.R. 81; 48 O.A.C. 81; 66 C.C.C.(3d) 321, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Kendall and McKay (1987), 20 O.A.C. 134; 35 C.C.C.(3d) 105 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Squire, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 13; 10 N.R. 25, refd to. [para. 37].

MacAskill v. R., [1931] S.C.R. 330, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Chambers (No. 2), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1293; 119 N.R. 321; 59 C.C.C.(3d) 321, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Gudmondson (1933), 60 C.C.C. 332 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 40].

United States v. Myers (1977), 550 F.2d 1036 (5th Cir.), refd to. [para. 42].

Colpitts v. R., [1965] S.C.R. 739, refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Wildman, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 311; 5 O.A.C. 241; 55 N.R. 27, refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. P.L.S., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 909; 122 N.R. 321; 90 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 234; 280 A.P.R. 234; 5 C.R.(4th) 351; 64 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Broyles, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 595; 131 N.R. 118; 120 A.R. 189; 8 W.A.C. 189; 8 C.R.R.(2d) 274; [1992] 1 W.W.R. 289; 9 C.R.(4th) 1; 84 Alta. L.R.(2d) 1; 68 C.C.C.(3d) 308, refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. F.F.B., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 697; 148 N.R. 161; 120 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 332 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Bevan and Griffith, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 599; 154 N.R. 245; 64 O.A.C. 165, refd to. [para. 46].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 686(1)(b)(iii) [para. 24].

Authors and Works Noticed:

McCormick on Evidence (Revsd. Ed. 1972), p. 655 [para. 42].

McCormick on Evidence (4th Ed. 1992), vol. 1, p. 811 [para. 26]; vol. 2, p. 182 [para. 39].

Sopinka, J., Lederman, S.N., and Bryant, A.W., The Law of Evidence in Canada (1992), p. 454 [para. 26].

Wigmore on Evidence (3rd Ed. 1940), vol. 1, p. 573 [para. 27].

Counsel:

Clayton C. Ruby, for the appellant;

Jamie C. Klukach, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Ruby & Edwardh, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant;

Attorney General for Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on November 12, 1993, before Lamer, C.J.C., Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On January 27, 1994, Major, J., delivered the following judgment for the Supreme Court of Canada in both official languages.

To continue reading

Request your trial
558 practice notes
  • R. v. Goforth, 2022 SCC 25
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • June 10, 2022
    ...2007 SCC 53, [2007] 3 S.C.R. 523; R. v. Cooper, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 146; R. v. Calnen, 2019 SCC 6, [2019] 1 S.C.R. 301; R. v. Arcangioli, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 129; Thériault v. The Queen, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 336; Cullen v. The King, [1949] S.C.R. 658; R. v. Stephan, 2018 SCC 21, [2018] 1 S.C.R. 633......
  • Restoring Trust, Transparency and Accountability Act, 2018, S.O. 2018, c. 17 - Bill 57
    • Canada
    • Ontario Bills
    • December 6, 2018
    ...holdback By owner 27.1 (1) An owner may refuse to pay some or all of the amount the owner is required to pay to a contractor under section 26 or 27, as the case may be, (a) the owner publishes a notice in the prescribed form specifying the amount of the holdback that the owner refuses to pa......
  • COURT OF APPEAL SUMMARIES (APRIL 27 – MAY 1)
    • Canada
    • LexBlog Canada
    • May 4, 2020
    ...1 S.C.R. 314, R. v. Lavallee, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 852, R. v. S.A.B., 2003 SCC 60, R. v. White, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 72, R. v. Arcangioli, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 129, R. v. Gager, 2012 ONSC 2712, R. v. Chiasson, 2009 ONCA 789, R. v. Jeanvenne, 2010 ONCA 706, R. v. Dixon, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 244, R. v. McNeil, 2......
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (April 27 ' May 1)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • May 12, 2020
    ...1 S.C.R. 314, R. v. Lavallee, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 852, R. v. S.A.B., 2003 SCC 60, R. v. White, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 72, R. v. Arcangioli, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 129, R. v. Gager, 2012 ONSC 2712, R. v. Chiasson, 2009 ONCA 789, R. v. Jeanvenne, 2010 ONCA 706, R. v. Dixon, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 244, R. v. McNeil, 2......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
538 cases
  • R. v. Goforth, 2022 SCC 25
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • June 10, 2022
    ...2007 SCC 53, [2007] 3 S.C.R. 523; R. v. Cooper, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 146; R. v. Calnen, 2019 SCC 6, [2019] 1 S.C.R. 301; R. v. Arcangioli, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 129; Thériault v. The Queen, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 336; Cullen v. The King, [1949] S.C.R. 658; R. v. Stephan, 2018 SCC 21, [2018] 1 S.C.R. 633......
  • Leahy c. Canada (Citoyenneté et Immigration),
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Canada)
    • September 4, 2012
    ...(ATIA), he concluded that the Court must apply the correctness standard to review whether the withheld information falls within the section 26 or 27 exemptions, and the standard of reasonableness to the discretionary refusal to release exempted information (see Blank, at paragraph [30] Le j......
  • R v Mela, 2021 ABCA 38
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • February 3, 2021
    ...Likewise, there is error of law in the trial judge’s treatment of the after fact conduct. It is now clarified that R v Arcangioli [1994] 1 SCR 129 did not establish a rule that after fact conduct could never be used to prove intent: see notably Calnen. Rather, it can be relevant to p......
  • Gracias v. Dr. David Walt Dentistry,
    • Canada
    • Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
    • May 17, 2022
    ...to keep in mind the following benchmark facts and dates: a.           On February 26 or 27, 2020, while still employed at Walt Dentistry, Ms. Gracias used her personal email account to email an application for a job at Oasis b.  &#......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 firm's commentaries
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (April 27 ' May 1)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • May 12, 2020
    ...1 S.C.R. 314, R. v. Lavallee, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 852, R. v. S.A.B., 2003 SCC 60, R. v. White, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 72, R. v. Arcangioli, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 129, R. v. Gager, 2012 ONSC 2712, R. v. Chiasson, 2009 ONCA 789, R. v. Jeanvenne, 2010 ONCA 706, R. v. Dixon, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 244, R. v. McNeil, 2......
  • COURT OF APPEAL SUMMARIES (APRIL 27 – MAY 1)
    • Canada
    • LexBlog Canada
    • May 4, 2020
    ...1 S.C.R. 314, R. v. Lavallee, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 852, R. v. S.A.B., 2003 SCC 60, R. v. White, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 72, R. v. Arcangioli, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 129, R. v. Gager, 2012 ONSC 2712, R. v. Chiasson, 2009 ONCA 789, R. v. Jeanvenne, 2010 ONCA 706, R. v. Dixon, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 244, R. v. McNeil, 2......
  • Ontario Court Of Appeal Summaries (December 10 – 14, 2018)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • December 20, 2018
    ...Conduct, Probative Value, Identity, Fresh Evidence, Judicial Discretion, Criminal Code, s. 686(1)(a)(iii), R. v. Arcangioli, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 129, R. v. S.B.1, 2018 ONCA 807, R. v. Hall, 2010 ONCA 724, R. v. O'Connor (2002), 62 O.R. (3d) 263 (C.A.), Browne v. Dunn (1893), 6 R. 87 (H.L.), R. ......
  • Ontario Court Of Appeal Summaries (October 8 – 12, 2018)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • October 16, 2018
    ...678, R v Vorobiov, 2018 ONCA 448, R v Angelis, 2013 ONCA 70, R v Chambers, 2016 ONCA 684, R v White, [1998] 2 SCR 72, R v Arcangioli, [1994] 1 SCR 129, R v White, 2011 SCC 13, R v Aravena, 2015 ONCA 250, leave to appeal refused, [2015] SCCA No 497, R v Khan, 2007 ONCA 779, R v Handy, 2002 S......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 books & journal articles
  • Character Evidence: Primary Materiality
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Law of Evidence. Eighth Edition
    • June 25, 2020
    ...And see R v Yaeck (1991), 6 OR (3d) 293 (CA). 263 R v Pilon , 2009 ONCA 248. See also Jackson , above note 262. 264 R v Arcangioli , [1994] 1 SCR 129; Pollock , above note 245 at paras 100–1. 265 R v Khan (2004), 189 CCC (3d) 49 (Ont SCJ). THE L AW OF EVIDENCE 116 used by the jury to infer ......
  • Table of cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Law of Evidence. Eighth Edition
    • June 25, 2020
    ...45 R v Arbour (1990), 4 CRR (2d) 369 (Ont CA) ................................................... 476 R v Arcangioli, [1994] 1 SCR 129 ..........................................................43, 115, 682 R v Arcuri, [2001] 2 SCR 828 ..............................................................
  • Table of cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Ethics and Criminal Law. Second Edition
    • June 19, 2015
    ...R v Araujo, 2000 SCC 65 ....................................................................................640 R v Arcangioli, [1994] 1 SCR 129, 87 CCC (3d) 289, [1994] SCJ No 5 ............. 632 R v Archer (2005), 203 OAC 56, 202 CCC (3d) 60, [2005] OJ No 4348 (CA) .............................
  • The Prosecutor
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Ethics and Criminal Law. Second Edition
    • June 19, 2015
    ...at 278–79 [para 20] (Ont CA) [ Bricker ], leave to appeal to SCC refused, [1994] SCCA No 331. 277 See, for example, R v Arcangioli (1994), 87 CCC (3d) 289 at 296 [para 26] (SCC); R v GM , 2011 ONCA 503 at paras 64–65. 278 See R v Tash , 2013 ONCA 380 at paras 48–62. 279 See Bricker , above ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT