R. v. Bouchard-Lebrun (T.), [2011] N.R. TBEd. NO.055

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., and Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: November 30, 2011
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: [2011] N.R. TBEd. NO.055;2011 SCC 58;JE 2011-2005;[2011] SCJ No 58 (QL);423 NR 48;[2011] 3 SCR 575

R. v. Bouchard-Lebrun (T.) (SCC) - Criminal law - Mental disorder - Voluntary drug consumption resulting in toxic psychosis

MLB being edited

Currently being edited for N.R. - judgment temporarily in rough form.

[French language version follows English language version]

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

Temp. Cite: [2011] N.R. TBEd. NO.055

Tommy Bouchard-Lebrun (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) and Attorney General of Canada and Attorney General of Ontario (intervenors)

(33687; 2011 SCC 58; 2011 CSC 58)

Indexed As: R. v. Bouchard-Lebrun (T.)

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., and Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell, JJ.

November 30, 2011.

Summary:

The accused, while in a state of toxic psychosis caused by the voluntary consumption of drugs, brutally assaulted two victims. At trial, the accused was convicted of assault and assault causing bodily harm. The accused appealed, submitting that he was not criminally responsible on account of "mental disorder" (Criminal Code, s. 16). The judge held that s. 33.1 of the Criminal Code precluded self-induced intoxication as a defence for offences against the bodily integrity of another person. On appeal, the issue was whether toxic psychosis resulting from self-induced intoxication due to drug use constituted a "mental disorder".

The Quebec Court of Appeal, in a judgment reported 2010 QCCA 402, dismissed the appeal. The accused's transitory psychosis, caused by voluntary drug consumption, did not constitute a "mental disorder". The accused appealed. At issue was (1) whether s. 33.1 limited the scope of the defence of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder provided for in s. 16 and (2) whether a toxic psychosis caused exclusively by self-induced intoxication could constitute a "mental disorder" under s. 16.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 97

General principles - Mental disorder - Insanity, automatism, etc. - What constitutes "insanity" (incl. "not criminally responsible due to mental disorder") - The accused voluntarily consumed drugs which caused a toxic psychosis that rendered him incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong - While in that state, the accused brutally assaulted two persons - He had no underlying mental condition - The psychosis ended when he was no longer intoxicated - At issue was whether the accused's transitory psychosis, caused exclusively by self-induced drug intoxication, resulted from a "mental disorder" under s. 16 of the Criminal Code - If s. 16 applied, the accused would be not criminally responsible because the mental disorder made him incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of his actions or knowing that his actions were wrong - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the accused's transitory psychosis was not a "mental disorder" for the purposes of s. 16 - Accordingly, since s. 33.1 precluded self-induced intoxication as a defence to general intent offences such as assaults, the accused was properly convicted - Whether s. 16 applied was a two-stage test: (1) did the accused suffer from a mental disorder in the legal sense at the time of the offence and (2) was the accused, by reason of his mental condition, incapable of knowing that his actions were wrong - Section 2 of the Criminal Code defined "mental disorder" as "a disease of the mind" - The definition of "mental disorder" was "flexible enough to apply to any mental condition that, according to medical science in its current or future state, is indicative of a disorder that impairs the human mind or its functioning, and the recognition of which is compatible with the policy considerations that underline the defence provided for in s. 16" - What was characterized as a "mental disorder" was a question of law for a judge - The accused's toxic psychosis, caused by a single episode of intoxication, did not constitute a "mental disorder" - The cause of the psychosis was external - This was not an "abnormal effect", but was a fairly frequent occurrence with normal persons - The psychosis was unlikely to recur - The psychosis symptoms disappeared when the accused was no longer intoxicated - There was no evidence of an underlying disease of the mind - The court stated that "an accused whose mental condition at the material time can be attributed exclusively to a state of temporary self-induced intoxication and who poses no threat to others is not suffering from a mental disorder for the purposes of s. 16 ... The scheme of Part XX.1 applies only if the accused actually suffered from a disease of the mind at the material time. It is not intended to apply to accused persons whose temporary madness was induced artificially by a state of intoxication".

Criminal Law - Topic 113

General principles - Mental disorder - Insanity, automatism, etc. - Intoxication - [See Criminal Law - Topic 97 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Daviault (H.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 63; 173 N.R. 1; 64 Q.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Cooper, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1149; 31 N.R. 234, refd to. [para. 20].

Director of Public Prosecutions v. Beard, [1920] A.C. 479 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. W.J.D., [2007] 3 S.C.R. 523; 369 N.R. 225; 302 Sask.R. 4; 411 W.A.C. 4; 2007 SCC 53, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Daley - see R. v. W.J.D.

R. v. Robinson (D.), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 683; 194 N.R. 181; 72 B.C.A.C. 161; 119 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Leary, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 29; 13 N.R. 592, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Bernard, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 833; 90 N.R. 321; 32 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Huppie (R.J.C.), [2008] A.R. Uned. 576; 2008 ABQB 539, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. King, [1962] S.C.R. 746, refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Rabey, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 513; 32 N.R. 451, refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Parks, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 871; 140 N.R. 161; 55 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Perka, Nelson, Hines and Johnson, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 232; 55 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. Ruzic (M.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 687; 268 N.R. 1; 145 O.A.C. 235, refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Chaulk and Morrissette, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1303; 119 N.R. 161; 69 Man.R.(2d) 161, refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Swain, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 933; 125 N.R. 1; 47 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 53].

Winko v. Forensic Psychiatric Institute (B.C.) et al., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625; 241 N.R. 1; 124 B.C.A.C. 1; 203 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. Simpson (1977), 35 C.C.C.(2d) 337 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 60].

R. v. Rabey (1977), 17 O.R.(2d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 60].

R. v. Luedecke (J.) (2008), 269 O.A.C. 1; 2008 ONCA 716, refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Stone (B.T.), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 290; 239 N.R. 201; 123 B.C.A.C. 1; 201 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 63].

R. v. Oakley (1986), 13 O.A.C. 141; 24 C.C.C.(3d) 351 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 66].

R. v. Mailloux (1985), 12 O.A.C. 339; 25 C.C.C.(3d) 171 (C.A.), affd. [1988] 2 S.C.R. 1029; 89 N.R. 222; 30 O.A.C. 358, refd to. [para. 66].

R. v. Moroz (K.W.) (2003), 333 A.R. 109; 2003 ABPC 5, refd to. [para. 66].

R. v. Snelgrove (C.C.), [2004] B.C.T.C. 102; 2004 BCSC 102, refd to. [para. 66].

R. v. Lauv (C.R.), [2004] B.C.T.C. 1093; 2004 BCSC 1093, refd to. [para. 66].

R. v. Fortin, 2005 CanLII 6933 (Que. C.Q.), refd to. [para. 66].

R. v. Paul (D.J.) (2011), 299 B.C.A.C. 85; 508 W.A.C. 85; 2011 BCCA 46, refd to. [para. 66].

R. v. Malcolm (1989), 58 Man.R.(2d) 286; 50 C.C.C.(3d) 172 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 67].

R. v. D.P., 2009 QCCQ 644, refd to. [para. 68].

R. v. Vickberg (C.J.), [1998] B.C.T.C. Uned. 562; 16 C.R.(5th) 164 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 89].

R. v. Chaulk (S.L.) (2007), 257 N.S.R.(2d) 99; 820 A.P.R. 99; 2007 NSCA 84, refd to. [para. 89].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 33.1 [para. 34].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Alexander, Larry, Ferzan, Kimberly Kessler, and Morse, Stephen J., Crime and Culpability: A Theory of Criminal Law (2009), p. 155 [para. 48].

Barrett, Joan, and Shandler, Riun, Mental Disorder in Canadian Criminal Law (2006) (2011 Looseleaf update, rel. 1), p. 4-12 [para. 59].

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates (June 22, 1995) (1st Sess. 35th Parl.), vol. 133, p. 14470 [para. 34].

Parent, Hugues, Les Troubles psychotiques induits par une substance en droit pénal canadien: analyse médicale et juridique d'un concept en pleine évolution (2010), 69 R. du B. 103, pp. 119 [para. 68]; 123 [para. 81].

Parent, Hugues, Responsabilité pénale et troubles mentaux: Histoire de la folie en droit pénal français, anglais et canadien (1999), po, 266 to 271 [para. 47].

Counsel:

Véronique Robert and Roland Roy, for the appellant;

Guy Loisel and Pierre DesRosiers, for the respondent;

Ginette Gobeil and François Joyal, for the intervenor, Attorney General of Canada;

Robert E. Gattrell and Joan Barrett, for the intervenor, Attorney General of Ontario.

Solicitors of Record:

Roy & Robert, Montreal, Quebec, for the appellant;

Criminal and Penal Prosecutions of Quebec, Matane, Quebec, for the respondent;

Attorney General of Canada, Montreal, Quebec, for the intervenor, Attorney General of Canada;

Attorney General of Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, Attorney General of Ontario.

This appeal was heard on May 16, 2011, before McLachlin, C.J.C., Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On November 30, 2011, LeBel, J., delivered the following judgment in both official languages for the Court.