R. v. Biron,

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Judge: Dickson and de Grandpré, JJ.
• Citation: (1975), 4 N.R. 45 (SCC),1975 CanLII 13 (SCC),[1975] ACS no 64,59 DLR (3d) 409,[1976] 2 SCR 56,[1975] CarswellQue 2,[1975] SCJ No 64 (QL),4 NR 45,30 CR (ns) 109,23 CCC (2d) 513
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Date: 09 October 1974

R. v. Biron (1975), 4 N.R. 45 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Biron

Indexed As: R. v. Biron

Supreme Court of Canada

Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Judson,

Ritchie, Spence, Pigeon,

Dickson and de Grandpré, JJ.

March 7, 1975.

Summary:

This case arose out of a charge of obstructing a peace officer in the execution of his duty and a charge of creating a disturbance. The accused was arrested in a Montreal night club during a police raid. The accused used insulting language and resisted arrest. The accused was convicted by the trial judge creating a disturbance and of obstructing a peace officer in the execution of his duty.

On appeal by way of trial de novo the conviction of the accused of creating a disturbance was set aside and the accused was acquitted.

On appeal to the Quebec Court of Appeal the conviction of the accused of obstructing a peace officer in the execution of his duty was set aside and the accused was acquitted.

On appeal by the Crown to the Supreme Court of Canada, with respect to the charge of obstructing a peace officer in the execution of his duty, the appeal was allowed, the judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal was set aside, and the conviction by the trial judge was restored. The Supreme Court of Canada interpreted s. 450(1) of the Criminal Code which empowers a peace officer to arrest without a warrant a person who has committed or is about to commit an indictable offence. The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the peace officer was justified in arresting the accused because the accused was apparently committing an offence. The Supreme Court of Canada stated that a subsequent determination of guilt or innocence is irrelevant and, accordingly, the arrest of the accused was lawful and the accused was not justified in not resisting arrest.

Laskin, C.J.C., Spence and Dickson, JJ., dissenting, in the Supreme Court of Canada, would have dismissed the appeal and would have affirmed the judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal because the arrest of the accused by the peace officer was unlawful and because the word "apparently" should not be read into s. 450(1) of the Criminal Code.

Criminal Law - Topic 434

Offences against the administration of law and justice - Disobedience and obstruction - Charge of obstruction of a peace officer in the execution of his duty - The accused resisted arrest during a police raid at a Montreal night club - The accused was charged and acquitted of the offence of creating a disturbance - Criminal Code, s. 450(1) - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the peace officer was justified in arresting the accused because the accused was apparently committing an offence - The Supreme Court of Canada convicted the accused of obstruction of a peace officer acting in the execution of his duty.

Police - Topic 3069

Powers - Arrests - Arrest without a warrant of a person committing a criminal offence - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that section 450(1) of the Criminal Code empowers a police officer to arrest without a warrant a person who is apparently committing an offence regardless of whether or not an offence was in fact committed - See paragraph 28.

Words and Phrases

Justified - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the meaning of the word "justified" as found in section 31(2) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34 - See paragraph 35.

Cases Noticed:

Attorney General for Saskatchewan v. Pritchard (1961), 34 W.W.R. 458, not folld. [paras. 17, 48].

Wiltshire v. Barrett, [1965] 2 All E.R. 271, folld. [paras. 22, 49].

R. v. Shore (1960), 129 C.C.C. 70, not folld. [para. 46].

Sa Majeste la Reine c. James Whitfield, [1970] R.C.S. 46, folld. [para. 39].

R. v. Dand, [1965] 4 C.C.C. 366, not folld. [para. 46].

R. v. Klat (1968), 5 C.R.N.S. 136, folld. [para. 48].

R. v. Cottam (1969), 7 C.R.N.S. 179, folld. [para. 48].

Frey v. Fedoruk, [1950] S.C.R. 517, folld. [para. 48].

R. v. Dean, [1966] 3 C.C.C. 228, folld. [para. 51].

R. v. Tooley (1709), 2 Ld.Raym. 1296; 92 E.R. 349, folld. [para. 54].

R. v. Curvan (1826), 1 Mood.131; 168 E.R. 1213, folld. [para. 54].

R. v. Wilson, [1955] 1 All E.R. 744, folld. [para. 54].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 31 [para. 14]; sect. 450(1) [paras. 16, 18].

Police Act, S.Q. 1968, sect. 54 [para. 32].

Counsel:

J. Allard and G. Denis, for the appellant;

S. Menard and Christine Truesdell, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of Canada on October 9, 1974. Judgment was delivered by the Supreme Court of Canada on March 7, 1975 and the following opinions were filed:

MARTLAND, J., - see paragraphs 1 to 36, de GRANDPRE, J., - see paragraphs 37 to 40, LASKIN, C.J.C., - see paragraphs 41 to 60.

JUDSON, RITCHIE, and PIGEON, JJ., concurred with MARTLAND, J.

SPENCE and DICKSON, JJ., concurred with LASKIN, C.J.C.