R. v. Bernard, (1988) 32 O.A.C. 161 (SCC)

• Judge: Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Lamer, Wilson, Le Dain, La Forest and L'Heureux-Dubé, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: December 15, 1988
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1988), 32 O.A.C. 161 (SCC)

R. v. Bernard (1988), 32 O.A.C. 161 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Nelson Pierre Bernard (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent)

(19558)

Indexed As: R. v. Bernard

Supreme Court of Canada

Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Lamer, Wilson, Le Dain, La Forest and L'Heureux-Dubé, JJ.

December 15, 1988.

Summary:

The accused was convicted of sexual assault causing bodily harm contrary to s. 246.2(c) of the Criminal Code. The accused admitted forcing the victim to perform sexual intercourse, but raised the defence of drunkenness. The trial judge ruled that the offence was one of general intent, that drunkenness was not a defence and therefore evidence of drunkenness was not to be considered by the jury. The accused appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a judgment reported 7 O.A.C. 305; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 574; 44 C.R.(3d) 398, dismissed the appeal. The accused appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, Dickson, C.J.C. and Lamer, J., dissenting, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction.

Civil Rights - Topic 4949

Presumption of innocence - Evidence and proof - Removal of element of intent - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8547].

Civil Rights - Topic 8547

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Principles of fundamental justice - An accused submitted that making the defence of drunkenness inapplicable to general intent offences such as sexual assault violated ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as the Crown need not prove mens rea - The accused submitted that the requirement of mens rea was a principle of fundamental justice - McIntyre, J. (Beetz, J., concurring), of the Supreme Court of Canada, stated that criminal offences, as a general rule, do require a blameworthy mental state, but voluntarily intoxicated persons who commit general intent offences were not morally innocent, but were criminally blameworthy - McIntyre, J., stated that any intrusion upon the security of the person was in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice - Wilson, J. (L'Heureux-Dubé, J., concurring), stated that in cases where self-induced intoxication was not being used as a substitute for the mens rea of intentional application of force the Crown still had to prove mens rea; therefore, ss. 7 and 11(d) were not violated - Wilson, J., declined to determine whether using self-induced intoxication as a substitute for mens rea would violate Charter rights - Dickson, C.J.C. (Lamer and La Forest, JJ., concurring), stated that precluding the application of drunkenness to the determination of mens rea for general intent offences violated the principles of fundamental justice under s. 7 and the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair hearing under s. 11(d).

Criminal Law - Topic 33

Mens rea or intention - Crimes of specific intent v. general intent - A judge of the Supreme Court of Canada stated that "the general intent offence is one in which the only intent involved relates solely to the performance of the act in question with no further ulterior intent or purpose. The minimal intent to apply force in the offence of common assault affords an example. A specific intent offence is one which involves the performance of the actus reus, coupled with an intent or purpose going beyond the mere performance of the questioned act. Striking a blow or administering poison with the intent to kill, or assault with intent to maim or wound, are examples of such offences" - McIntyre, J. (Beetz, Wilson and L'Heureux-Dubé, JJ., concurring), stated that the distinction between general and specific intent offences was not artificial and not a legal fiction - Dickson, C.J.C. (Lamer and La Forest, JJ., concurring), disagreed with the majority and stated that the distinction should be abandoned - See paragraph 60.

Criminal Law - Topic 38

Mens rea or intention - Lack of understanding or capacity caused by intoxication - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the relation between self-induced intoxication and the Crown's burden of proving mens rea for both specific and general intent offences under the Criminal Code.

Criminal Law - Topic 669

Sexual offences - Sexual assault - Intention or mens rea - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the offence of sexual assault causing bodily harm contrary to s. 246.2(c) of the Criminal Code was an offence of general intent requiring proof of only the minimal intent to apply force - See paragraphs 65 to 66, 81.

Criminal Law - Topic 669

Sexual offences - Sexual assault - Intention or mens rea - Drunkenness - At issue before the Supreme Court of Canada was whether the defence of drunkenness applied to the offence of sexual assault causing bodily harm, a general intent offence - McIntyre, J. (Beetz, J., concurring), stated that self-induced intoxication was not a defence to a general intent offence; the Crown need prove only an intent to apply force - McIntyre, J., stated that in most cases that minimal intent to apply force would constitute mens rea and could reasonably be inferred from the act itself and other evidence - McIntyre, J., stated that in rare cases proof of voluntary drunkenness, by itself, could constitute mens rea - Wilson, J. (L'Heureux-Dubé, J., concurring), agreed with McIntyre, J., that in most cases of general intent offences and intoxication the Crown could prove mens rea by inference from the accused's acts - Wilson, J., refused to go so far as to say voluntary drunkenness, by itself, could constitute mens rea - Wilson, J., expressed concern that such a finding might run afoul of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Dickson, C.J.C. (Lamer and La Forest, JJ., concurring), stated that evidence of self-induced intoxication should be relevant to the proof of mens rea for any offence, whether the offence was one of general or specific intent.

Criminal Law - Topic 5039

Appeals - Indictable offence - Dismissal of appeal if error resulted in no miscarriage of justice - Error by trial judge - Effect of - An accused convicted of sexual assault causing bodily harm had raised the defence of drunkenness - The trial judge refused to leave the evidence of drunkenness with the jury after ruling that drunkenness was not a defence to the offence - In any event, the trial judge held that there was insufficient evidence of drunkenness to establish the defence - The Supreme Court of Canada held that even if the trial judge erred in excluding the evidence from the jury s. 613(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code applied to dismiss the appeal - The court held that since there was insufficient evidence to establish drunkenness, the jury's verdict would necessarily be the same notwithstanding the error; therefore there was no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice - See paragraphs 80, 95, 99.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Leary, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 29; 13 N.R. 592, appld. [para. 14].

R. v. Swietlinski, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 956; 34 N.R. 569, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Chase, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 293; 80 N.R. 247; 82 N.B.R.(2d) 229; 208 A.P.R. 229, refd to. [para. 14].

Director of Public Prosecutions v. Majewski, [1976] 2 All E.R. 142, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. O'Connor (1980), 4 A. Crim. R. 348, not appld. [para. 19].

R. v. Kamipeli, [1975] 2 N.Z.L.R. 610, refd to. [para. 22].

Director of Public Prosecutions v. Beard, [1920] A.C. 479, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Roulston, [1976] 2 N.Z.L.R. 644 (N.Z.C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Keogh, [1964] V.R. 400, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Hill, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 313; 68 N.R. 161; 17 O.A.C. 33, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Laybourn, Bulmer and Illingworth, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 782; 75 N.R. 271, refd to. [para. 26].

Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development v. Ranville, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 518; 44 N.R. 616, refd to. [para. 27].

Reference Re the Farm Products Marketing Act, [1957] S.C.R. 198, refd to. [para. 27].

Binus v. The Queen, [1967] S.C.R. 594, refd to. [para. 27].

Peda v. The Queen, [1969] S.C.R. 905, refd to. [para. 27].

Barnett v. Harrison, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 531; 5 N.R. 131, refd to. [para. 27].

Capital Cities Communications Inc. v. Canadian Radio-Television Commission, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 141; 18 N.R. 181, refd to. [para. 27].

A.V.G. Management Science Ltd. v. Barwell Developments Ltd., [1979] 2 S.C.R. 43; 24 N.R. 554, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Bell, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 212; 26 N.R. 457, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Paquette, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 189; 11 N.R. 451, refd to. [para. 28].

Dunbar v. The King (1936), 67 C.C.C. 20 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 28].

McNamara Construction (Western) Ltd. v. The Queen, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 654; 13 N.R. 181, refd to. [para. 28].

Farwell v. The Queen (1894), 22 S.C.R. 553, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Vetrovec; R. v. Gaja, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 811; 41 N.R. 606, refd to. [para. 28].

Reference Re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Vaillancourt, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 636; 81 N.R. 115; 10 Q.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 30].

Dolphin Delivery Ltd. v. Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 580, Peterson and Alexander, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 573; 71 N.R. 83, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 321; [1985] 3 W.W.R. 481, refd to. [para. 33].

Robertson and Rosetanni v. The Queen, [1963] S.C.R. 651, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Therens, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 613; 59 N.R. 122; 40 Sask.R. 122; [1985] 4 W.W.R. 286; 45 C.R.(3d) 97; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 655; 32 M.V.R. 153, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Chromiak, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 471; 29 N.R. 441, refd to. [para. 33].

Duke v. The Queen, [1972] 2 S.C.R. 917, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Smith (E.D.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1045; 75 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Miller and Cockriell, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 680; 11 N.R. 386, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. City of Sault Ste. Marie, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1299; 21 N.R. 295; 85 D.L.R.(3d) 161; 3 C.R.(3d) 30; 40 C.C.C.(2d) 353, refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335; 24 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 50 C.R.(3d) 1; 26 D.L.R.(4th) 200, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Holmes, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 914; 85 N.R. 21; 27 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 44].

Agricultural Products Marketing Act, Re, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1198; 19 N.R. 361, refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Pappajohn, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 120; 32 N.R. 104, refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Sansregret, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 570; 58 N.R. 123; 35 Man.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Robertson, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 918; 75 N.R. 6; 20 O.A.C. 200, refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Moreau (1986), 15 O.A.C. 81; 26 C.C.C.(3d) 359 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico v. Hernandez, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 228, refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Quin (1988), 90 N.R. 389 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. Campbell (1974), 17 C.C.C.(2d) 320 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. Santeramo (1976), 32 C.C.C.(2d) 35 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. George, [1960] S.C.R. 871, refd to. [para. 60].

Attorney General for Northern Ireland v. Gallagher, [1961] 3 All E.R. 299 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 62].

Bratty v. Attorney General for Northern Ireland, [1961] 3 All E.R. 523 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Doherty (1887), 16 Cox C.C. 306, refd to. [para. 70].

R. v. Morgan, [1976] A.C. 182, refd to. [para. 72].

R. v. Whyte, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 3; 86 N.R. 328, refd to. [para. 91].

R. v. Landry, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 145; 65 N.R. 161; 14 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 97].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 245.1(2), sect. 246.2(c), sect. 613(1)(b)(iii).

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 7, sect. 11(d).

Authors and Works Noticed:

Smith, George, Footnote to O'Connor's Case (1981), 5 Crim. L.J. 270, p. 277 [para. 25].

Stuart, Don, Canadian Criminal Law (2nd Ed. 1987), p. 378 [para. 36].

Quigley, Tim, Reform of the Intoxication Defence (1987), 33 McGill L.J. 1 [para. 40].

Doherty, David H., Regina v. O'Connor: Mens Rea Survives in Australia (1981), 19 U.W.O.L. Rev. 281, pp. 300-301 [para. 49].

Connelly, Peter J., Drunkenness and Mistake of Fact: Pappajohn v. The Queen; Swietlinski v. The Queen (1981), 24 Crim. L.Q. 49 [para. 49].

Boyle, Christine, Sexual Assault (1984), pp. 89-90 [para. 49].

Cross, Rupert, Blackstone v. Bentham (1976), 92 L.Q. Rev. 516, pp. 525-526 [para. 64].

Ashworth, A.J., Reason, Logic and Criminal Liability (1975), 91 L.Q. Rev. 102, p. 130 [para. 64].

Thornton, Mark T., Making Sense of Majewski (1981), 23 Crim. L.Q. 465, pp. 482-483 [para. 64].

Colvin, Eric, A Theory of the Intoxication Defence (1981), 59 Can. Bar Rev. 750, p. 779 [para. 64].

Watt, J.D., The New Offences Against the Person (1984), p. 113 [para. 65].

Mewett and Manning, Criminal Law (2nd Ed. 1985), p. 210 [para. 90].

Williams, Glanville, Textbook of Criminal Law (2nd Ed. 1983), pp. 475-476 [para. 90].

Counsel:

Clayton Ruby and Michael Code, for the appellant;

David A. Fairgrieve, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

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

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

On December 15, 1988, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official languages and the following opinions were filed:

Dickson, C.J.C. (Lamer, J., concurring), dissenting - see paragraphs 1 to 56;

McIntyre, J. (Beetz, J., concurring) - see paragraphs 57 to 80;

Wilson, J. (L'Heureux-Dubé, J., concurring) - see paragraphs 81 to 95;

La Forest, J. - see paragraphs 96 to 99.

Estey and Le Dain, JJ., did not participate in the judgment.