R. v. Carriere (D.M.), (2013) 573 A.R. 250 (QB)

• Judge: Wakeling, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: October 30, 2013
• Citations: (2013), 573 A.R. 250 (QB);2013 ABQB 645

R. v. Carriere (D.M.) (2013), 573 A.R. 250 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2013] A.R. TBEd. NO.014

Her Majesty the Queen v. David Morris Carriere (accused)

(111105466Q1; 2013 ABQB 645)

Indexed As: R. v. Carriere (D.M.)

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Wakeling, J.

October 30, 2013.

Summary:

Carriere was accused of: (1) committing an aggravated assault on his common law partner, P.S., on September 6, 2011, contrary to s. 268 of the Criminal Code; (2) breaching a recognizance by committing a breach of the peace; and (3) breaching a recognizance by purchasing, using or consuming alcohol. Carriere pleaded guilty to the last charge and not guilty to the first two. He asserted that P.S.'s injuries occurred while he was trying to stop her from taking her own life or harming him. The following questions were presented: (1) which justification regime applied: the sections of the Code which were in force on September 6, 2011, or the new norm introduced by the Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act, which came into effect on March 11, 2013; (2) whether the Act applied to fact patterns which were completed before the effective date of the enactment; and if so, (3) whether the new justification norm contravened s. 11(g) of the Charter.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench convicted Carriere, having found that his evidence that he acted to stop P.S. from killing herself or harming him was unbelievable. P.S.'s version of the incident was believable and consistent with other evidence. The Court addressed the questions as follows: Parliament did not intend the new justification norm to have retroactive effect. Therefore, the Criminal Code justification sections in force on September 6, 2011, applied to this case. If Parliament had intended the Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act to apply to fact patterns which were completed before March 11, 2013, the new provision would have violated s. 11(g) of the Charter. Had the Court accepted Carriere's evidence, no justification principles would have assisted him.

Editor's Note: Certain names in the following case have been initialized or the case otherwise edited to prevent the disclosure of identities where required by law, publication ban, Maritime Law Book's editorial policy or otherwise.

Civil Rights - Topic 3125.2

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Retrospective legislation (Charter, s. 11(g)) - [See second Criminal Law - Topic 1420 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 239

General principles - Statutory defences or exceptions - Self-defence (incl. preventing assault) - [See third Criminal Law - Topic 1420 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 1412

Offences against person and reputation - Assaults - Defences - General - [See third Criminal Law - Topic 1420 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 1415

Assaults - Aggravated assault - The accused was charged with committing an aggravated assault on his common law partner, on September 6, 2011 (Criminal Code, s. 268) - The complainant's evidence was that the accused grabbed her by her hair, lifted her out of the chair and banged her head into the wall - She then slumped to the floor - While she was sitting on the floor, the accused kicked her in the face on two separate occasions - The first time he did so "at least" three or four times - Moments later the accused kicked her several more times in the face - P.S. had multiple bruises to her head, face and trunk, and multiple facial fractures - The accused asserted he elbowed the complainant in the face several times so that he could keep the knife over which they were struggling away from her and to prevent her from taking her own life or harming him - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench rejected the accused's account of events - His post-incident behavior completely undermined his assertion - P.S.'s version of the incident was believable and consistent with other evidence - The Crown had established its case - The accused intentionally kicked the complainant in the face a number of times knowing that she did not consent to that act - A reasonable person in the accused's situation would know that repeatedly kicking a person in the face was likely to wound, maim or disfigure the person kicked - See paragraphs 40 to 48.

Criminal Law - Topic 1420

Offences against person and reputation - Assaults - Defence - Self-defence - The accused was charged with committing an aggravated assault on the complainant on September 6, 2011 - He asserted that the complainant's injuries occurred while he was trying to stop her from taking her own life or harming him - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench considered whether the self-defence norms in force on September 6, 2011, applied or whether the self-defence rule introduced by the Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act, which came into force on March 11, 2013 (the new self-defence rule) was the applicable norm - The court concluded that the self-defence norms in force on September 6, 2011, governed this case - "I am satisfied that the Parliament of Canada did not intend the new self-defence rule to apply to fact patterns each component of which was completed before March 11, 2013. ... There is a presumption against the retroactive application of statutes in the Anglo-American-Canadian tradition. ... There is no express declaration in the Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act that Parliament intended it to have anything but a prospective effect. ... Nor is there a compelling reason to conclude that the Parliament of Canada must have intended that the Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act apply to facts which predated its effective date. ... The important question is whether Parliament intended the new self-defence rule to apply retroactively, not whether a person relying on self-defence fares better under the old or new rules. ... For these reasons, I conclude that Parliament did not intend the new self-defence rule to have a retroactive effect." - See paragraphs 49 to 66.

Criminal Law - Topic 1420

Offences against person and reputation - Assaults - Defence - Self-defence - The accused was charged with committing an aggravated assault on his common law partner (the complainant) on September 6, 2011 - He asserted that the complainant's injuries occurred while he was trying to stop her from taking her own life or harming him - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench considered whether the self-defence norms in force on September 6, 2011, applied or whether the self-defence rule introduced by the Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act, which came into force on March 11, 2013 (the new self-defence rule) was the applicable norm - "If Parliament intended the new self-defence rule to have a retroactive temporal scope, a position a number of courts have adopted, the Court would have to consider whether the new self-defence rule violates the ban against ex post facto criminal law in the Constitution of Canada. Section 11(g) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms effectively prohibits a particular kind of ex post facto criminal law in Canada. It states that a person cannot be 'found guilty on account of any act or omission unless, at the time of the act or omission, it constituted an offence under Canadian ... law ...'. I conclude that the new self-defence rule would violate s. 11(g) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms if it governed fact patterns which occurred before March 11, 2013. Some members of the class of accused persons who may choose to invoke self-defence may be adversely affected by the new s. 34." - See paragraphs 67 to 102.

Criminal Law - Topic 1420

Offences against person and reputation - Assaults - Defence - Self-defence - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench reviewed the self-defence provisions as they existed before the Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act came into effect (March 11, 2013), including in what respects s. 37(1) differed from ss. 34(1) and 34(2) of the Criminal Code - See paragraphs 79 to 86.

Criminal Law - Topic 1420

Offences against person and reputation - Assaults - Defence - Self-defence - The accused was charged with committing an aggravated assault on the complainant on September 6, 2011 - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, had it not rejected the accused's evidence that he acted to stop the complainant from killing herself or harming him, would have concluded that s. 34(1) of the Criminal Code as it existed on September 6, 2011, would not have assisted the accused - First, the accused provoked the complainant's unlawful assault on him - He placed a knife on the table at which she was sitting and invited her to kill herself, knowing that he created a substantial risk that she would immediately use the knife to harm or kill herself - By his own account, the complainant had used knives in the past to hurt herself, and she was depressed - The very risk he created materialized - She reached for the knife, which prompted him to grab it so that she could not use it to hurt herself - Second, the accused applied far more force than was necessary to defend himself from any threat the complainant represented to him - Objectively assessed, he did not have to vigorously elbow the complainant four or five times in the face to defend himself - He had control of the knife - He weighed 40 to 45 pounds more than the complainant - The Court concluded that the force the accused applied "falls far outside the very generous range of latitude used in measuring the scope of allowable defensive acts." - See paragraphs 103 to 106.

Criminal Law - Topic 1420

Offences against person and reputation - Assaults - Defence - Self-defence - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, having decided that the justification regime in force on September 6, 2011, the date of the assault, applied in this case, applied s. 34(2) of the Criminal Code to the facts, had the Court accepted the accused's evidence that he acted to stop the complainant from killing herself or harming him - The Court concluded that the accused "does not benefit from s. 34(2) of the Criminal Code in effect on September 6, 2011, in spite of the fact this provision is available even if the accused provoked an unlawful assault. ... First, there is no evidence that [the accused] believed that [the complainant's] unlawful assault may result in his death or grievous bodily harm. And if he entertained such a belief, it would not have been based on reasonable grounds. He had control of the knife and was much bigger than she was. Second, there is no evidence that [the accused] believed the use of lesser force would not have preserved him from death or grievous bodily harm. Again, if he had held such a belief, it would have been unreasonable" - See paragraphs 107 to 109.

Criminal Law - Topic 1420

Offences against person and reputation - Assaults - Defence - Self-defence - The accused was charged with committing an aggravated assault on the complainant on September 6, 2011 - He testified that he acted in self-defence when he elbowed the complainant four or five times in the head - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench decided that, had it not rejected the accused's account of events, the justification sections of the Criminal Code which were in force on September 6, 2011, applied - The Court concluded that "[e]ven though s. 37 is, in some senses, more generous to the accused, its terms are still not broad enough to assist [the accused]. I am convinced that the force [the accused] applied to the complainant - four or five hard elbows to the face - was far more than was necessary to prevent her from assaulting him. Had I come to a different conclusion on this point, I would have had to consider whether the accused elbowed the complainant with the purpose of inflicting any hurt or harm that was excessive having regard to her acts in grappling with him for the knife. Given that I am exploring self-defence only on an alternative bases of the facts, which I reject, it is not necessary to explore this issue in detail. Had I accepted [the accused's] version of events I would have concluded that he did not act to accomplish the prohibited s. 37(2) purpose." - See paragraph 110.

Criminal Law - Topic 1420

Offences against person and reputation - Assaults - Defence - Self-defence - The accused was charged with committing an aggravated assault on the complainant on September 6, 2011 - He testified that he acted in self-defence when he elbowed the complainant four or five times in the head - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench decided that the justification sections of the Criminal Code which were in force on September 6, 2011, applied - Had it concluded otherwise, the new self-defence rule introduced by the Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act would not have assisted the accused - "The key inquiry is whether [the accused's] use of force against [the complainant] was reasonable in the circumstances. I would have concluded that it was not. First, [the accused] was primarily responsible for the conflict. He placed a knife on the table within [the complainant's] reach. He lunged for the knife when she moved to take it. Had he not done either of these things, the two of them would never have struggled for the knife. Second, [the accused] was bigger, heavier and stronger than the complainant. He could have secured control of the knife without elbowing her. Third, the accused and the complainant had lived together for several years. In that period, the complainant had never harmed the accused. Fourth, the accused's decision to elbow the complainant hard in the face four or five times was not a proportionate response. It was excessive. [The accused] should have hung onto the knife until [the complainant] ran out of energy and relaxed." - See paragraphs 111 and 112.

Criminal Law - Topic 1423

Offences against person and reputation - Assaults - Defence - Defence of others - The accused was charged with committing an aggravated assault - The accused testified that he elbowed the complainant hard in the face four or five times to stop her from harming or killing herself - Section 37 of the Criminal Code provided, in part, that "[e]very one is justified in using force to defend ... any one under his protection from assault, if he uses no more force than is necessary to prevent the assault ..." - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, had it accepted the accused's evidence, concluded that the accused could not have invoked that part of s. 37 - "This section is only applicable if there are three persons. There must be a victim or potential victim, an aggressor and a defender. Section 37 unequivocally states, in effect, that A is justified in using force against B to protect C. ... The court has no mandate to ignore the ordinary meaning of unmistakable legislative language. ... If Parliament had intended s. 37 to provide justification for A applying force to B to prevent B from committing suicide, it would have said so. Suicide is a legal concept well known to legislators and, I am sure, would have been incorporated into s. 37 had Parliamentarians intended it to be there." - See paragraphs 113 to 119.

Statutes - Topic 6714

Operation and effect - Commencement, duration and repeal - Retrospective and retroactive enactments - Retrospective or retroactive operation - Criminal or penal legislation - [See first and second Criminal Law - Topic 1420 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. D.W., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742; 122 N.R. 277; 46 O.A.C. 352, refd to. [para. 46, footnote 4].

R. v. Parks, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 871; 140 N.R. 161; 55 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 47, footnote 5].

R. v. Rabey, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 513; 32 N.R. 451, refd to. [para. 47, footnote 5].

R. v. Leary, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 29; 13 N.R. 592, refd to. [para. 47, footnote 5].

R. v. Godin (J.A.), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 484; 168 N.R. 193; 147 N.B.R.(2d) 321; 375 A.P.R. 321, refd to. [para. 47, footnote 6].

R. v. Desousa, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 944; 142 N.R. 1; 56 O.A.C. 109, refd to. [para. 47, footnote 6].

R. v. Creighton, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 3; 157 N.R. 1; 65 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 47, footnote 6].

R. v. Larkin (1942), 29 Cr. App. R. 18 (C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 47, footnote 6].

Director of Public Prosecution v. Daley (1978), 69 Cr. App. R. 39 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 47, footnote 6].

R. v. Fontaine (T.J.) (2011), 303 B.C.A.C. 65; 512 W.A.C. 65; 2011 BCCA 140, refd to. [para. 47, footnote 6].

R. v. S.R.L. (1992), 59 O.A.C. 130; 11 O.R.(3d) 271 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 47, footnote 6].

R. v. Dewey (M.R.) (1998), 232 A.R. 143; 195 W.A.C. 143; 21 C.R.(5th) 232 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 47, footnote 6].

R. v. Swenson (R.D.) (1994), 123 Sask.R. 106; 74 W.A.C. 106; 91 C.C.C.(3d) 541 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 47, footnote 6].

R. v. Dineley (S.), [2012] 3 S.C.R. 272; 436 N.R. 59; 297 O.A.C. 50; 2012 SCC 58, refd to. [para. 51].

West v. Gwynne, [1911] 2 Ch. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 56].

Lewis v. Lewis, [1985] A.C. 828 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 56].

Landgraf v. US1 Film Products (1994), 511 U.S. 244, refd to. [para. 56].

Bowen v. Georgetown University Hospital (1988), 488 U.S. 204, refd to. [para. 56].

United States Fiduciary & Guaranty Co. v. United States ex rel. Struthers (1908), 209 U.S. 306, refd to. [para. 56].

Gustavson Drilling (1964) Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, [1977] 1 S.C.R. 271; 7 N.R. 401, refd to. [para. 56].

Canada Safeway Ltd. v. United Food & Commercial Workers, Local 401 (1992), 26 L.A.C.(4th) 409, refd to. [para. 57].

Austria (Republic) v. Altmann (2004), 541 U.S. 677, refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. Pandurevic (M.), [2013] O.T.C. Uned. 2978; 2013 ONSC 2978, disagreed with [para. 57].

R. v. Vine (1875), L.R. 10 Q.B. 195, refd to. [para. 58].

United States of America v. Dixon (2008), 551 F.3d 578 (7th Cir.), revd. (2010), 560 U.S. 438, refd to. [para. 58].

Quebec (Attorney General) v. Healy, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 158; 73 N.R. 288; 6 Q.A.C. 56, refd to. [para. 58].

Calder v. Bull (1798), 3 U.S. 386 (3 Dall), refd to. [para. 59].

R. v. Evans (D.J.), [2013] B.C.T.C. Uned. 462; 2013 BCSC 462, refd to. [para. 60].

R. v. Wang, 2013 ONCJ 220, refd to. [para. 60].

United States of America v. Carr (2010), 560 U.S. 438, refd to. [para. 61, footnote 7].

R. v. Serdyuk (O.S.) (2012), 533 A.R. 199; 557 W.A.C. 199; 2012 ABCA 205, refd to. [para. 61, footnote 7].

R. v. Simon (J.M.) (2013), 558 A.R. 384; 2013 ABQB 303, refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Evans, [2013] B.C.J. No. 500, refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Patterson Jones, 2013 QCCQ 6632, refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Sanderson (W.J.), [2013] Man.R.(2d) Uned. 36; 2013 MBQB 139, refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Parker 2013 ONCJ 195, refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Chubbs (G.A.) (2013), 341 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 346; 1061 A.P.R. 346; 2013 NLCA 60, refd to. [para. 63].

R. v. Trudell, 2013 ONSC 6092, refd to. [para. 63].

R. v. S., 2013 BCPC 166, refd to. [para. 63].

R. v. Caswell (B.L.) (2013), 421 Sask.R. 312; 2013 SKPC 114, refd to. [para. 63].

R. v. Marchand, 2013 QCCQ 9976, refd to. [para. 63].

R. v. Crocker (B.L.) (2013), 339 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 179; 1054 A.P.R. 179; 2013 CarswellNfld 290 (N.L. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 63].

R. v. Urquhart, 2013 BCPC 184, refd to. [para. 64, footnote 8].

Carmel v. Texas (2000), 529 U.S. 513, refd to. [para. 68, footnote 11].

Collins v. Youngblood (1990), 497 U.S. 37, refd to. [para. 68, footnote 11].

Beazell v. Ohio (1925), 269 U.S. 167, refd to. [para. 69].

United States of America v. Hall (1809), 26 F. Cas. 84 (D. Pa), refd to. [para. 69].

Lynn v. Mathis (1997), 519 U.S. 433, refd to. [para. 69].

R. v. Finta, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 701; 165 N.R. 1; 70 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 70].

R. v. Griffiths, [1891] 2 Q.B. 145, refd to. [para. 70].

R. v. Price (1884), 12 Q.B.D. 247, refd to. [para. 70].

R. v. Fortier (1963), 41 C.R. 211 (Que. Q.B. App.), refd to. [para. 71].

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. 76].

R. v. Sault Ste. Marie (City), [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1299; 21 N.R. 295, refd to. [para. 76].

R. v. Perka, Nelson, Hines and Johnson, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 232; 55 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 76].

R. v. Aryeh, [1972] 2 O.R. 249 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 76].

Lambert v. California (1957), 355 U.S. 225, refd to. [para. 76].

R. v. Ross (1944), 84 C.C.C. 107 (B.C. Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 76].

R. v. Bailey (1800), 168 Eng. Rep. 651 (Cr. Cases Res.), refd to. [para. 77].

The Cotton Planter, Re (1810), 6 F. Cas. 620 (C.C.N.Y.), refd to. [para. 77].

R. v. Campbell (1972), 10 C.C.C.(2d) 26 (Alta. Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 77].

R. v. Brisson, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 227; 44 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 80].

R. v. Pintar (J.) (1996), 93 O.A.C. 172; 110 C.C.C.(3d) 402 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 80].

R. v. Grandin (D.T.) (2001), 152 B.C.A.C. 228; 250 W.A.C. 228; 154 C.C.C.(3d) 408 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 83].

R. v. Mulder (1978), 40 C.C.C.(2d) 1 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 83].

R. v. Kong (V.) (2005), 371 A.R. 90; 354 W.A.C. 90; 200 C.C.C.(3d) 19 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 84, footnote 13].

R. v. Baxter (1975), 27 C.C.C.(2d) 96 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 84, footnote 13].

R. v. Reilly, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 396; 55 N.R. 274; 6 O.A.C. 88, refd to. [para. 84, footnote 15].

R. v. Bogue (1976), 30 C.C.C.(2d) 403 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 84, footnote 16].

Brown v. United States of America (1921), 256 U.S. 335, refd to. [para. 84, footnote 16].

R. v. Martin (1985), 47 C.R.(3d) 342 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 84, footnote 16].

Palmer v. R. (1971), 55 Cr. App. R. 223 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 84, footnote 16].

R. v. McIntosh (B.B.), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 686; 178 N.R. 161; 79 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 84, footnote 17].

R. v. Nelson (1992), 54 O.A.C. 14; 71 C.C.C.(3d) 449 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 84, footnote 17].

R. v. Pétel (C.), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 3; 162 N.R. 137; 59 Q.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 84, footnote 19].

R. v. Marky, [1976] 6 W.W.R. 390; 1 A.R. 407 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 84, footnote 20].

R. v. Hibbert (L.), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 973; 184 N.R. 165; 84 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 84, footnote 20].

R. v. Ogal (1928), 50 C.C.C. 71 (Alta. Sup. Ct. App. Div.), refd to. [para. 84, footnote 22].

R. v. Kandola (J.S.) (1993), 27 B.C.A.C. 226; 45 W.A.C. 226; 80 C.C.C.(3d) 481 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 84, footnote 22].

R. v. Ward (1978), 4 C.R.(3d) 190 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 84, footnote 22].

R. v. Cairney (M.J.) (2013), 450 N.R. 1; 561 A.R. 192; 594 W.A.C. 192; 2013 SCC 55, refd to. [para. 84, footnote 23].

R. v. Pappas (B.J.) (2013), 561 A.R. 228; 594 W.A.C. 228; 450 N.R. 37; 2013 SCC 56, refd to. [para. 84, footnote 23].

R. v. Fraser (1990), 96 N.S.R.(2d) 128; 253 A.P.R. 128 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 84, footnote 24].

R. v. Le (T.D.) (2011), 270 Man.R.(2d) 82; 524 W.A.C. 82; 2011 MBCA 83, refd to. [para. 84, footnote 28].

R. v. McDonald (M.) (2012), 292 O.A.C. 188; 2012 ONCA 379, refd to. [para. 84, footnote 30].

Ross v. Ross (2013), 568 A.R. 380; 2013 ABQB 490, refd to. [para. 85].

R. v. Cinous (J.), [2002] 2 S.C.R. 3; 285 N.R. 1; 2002 SCC 29, refd to. [para. 86].

R. v. Chaulk and Morrissette, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1303; 119 N.R. 161; 69 Man.R.(2d) 161, refd to. [para. 86].

R. v. Latour, [1951] S.C.R. 19, refd to. [para. 86].

R. v. Hebert (D.M.), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 272; 197 N.R. 277; 77 B.C.A.C. 1; 126 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 86].

R. v. White (R.J.) (2004), 202 B.C.A.C. 289; 331 W.A.C. 289; 188 C.C.C.(3d) 317 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 86].

Lamptey v. The Republic, [1974] 1 Ghana L.R. 165 (Ct. App.), refd to. [para. 87, footnote 37].

Commonwealth v. McDonough (1866), 95 Mass. 581 (Sup. Jud. Ct.), refd to. [para. 90].

Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General) et al., [1993] 3 S.C.R. 519; 158 N.R. 1; 34 B.C.A.C. 1; 56 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 105, footnote 39].

R. v. Duffy, [1967] 1 Q.B. 63 (C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 114, footnote 41].

State v. King (2013), 304 P. 3d 1 (S.C. MT), refd to. [para. 116].

Connecticut National Bank v. Germain (1992), 503 U.S. 249, refd to. [para. 118].

Goodrich v. Paisner, [1957] A.C. 65 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 118].

Henry v. Workers' Compensation Board (Sask.) (1999), 177 Sask.R. 35; 199 W.A.C. 35; 172 D.L.R.(4th) 73 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 119].

Statutes Noticed:

Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act, S.C. 2012, c. 9, sect. 34 [para. 12].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 34, sect. 36, sect. 37, sect. 265, sect. 268 [para. 11].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Asprey, Michele M., Plain Language for Lawyers (4th Ed. 2010), p. 140 [para. 84, footnote 24].

Bennion, Francis, Statutory Interpretation (1984), p. 314 [para. 57].

Blackstone, William, Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-1769), pp. 27 [para. 77]; 46 [para. 73].

Burchell E.M., and Hunt, P.M.A., South African Criminal Law and Procedure (1970), pp. 47 to 78 [para. 70].

Colin, Eric and Anand, Sanjeev, Principles of Criminal Law (3rd Ed. 2007), pp. 309 [para. 84, footnotes 14, 15, 16, 17, 18]; 311 [para. 84, footnotes 17, 18, 19, 21].

Côté, Pierre-André, The Interpretation of Legislation in Canada (4th Ed. 2011), pp. 131, 132 [para. 57].

Hogg, Peter, Constitutional Law of Canada (5th Ed. 2007) (2012 Looseleaf Supp., Release 1), p. 51-33 [para. 56].

Holmes, Oliver Wendell, The Common Law (1963), p. 42 [para. 76].

LaFave, Wayne R., and Scott, Austin, Handbook on Criminal Law (1972), p. 90 [para. 73].

Scalia, Antonin and Garner, Bryan, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts (2012), p. 93 [paras. 85, 118].

Silving, Helen, Constituent Elements of Crime (1967), p. 362 [para. 76].

Sullivan, Ruth, Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes (5th Ed. 2008), pp. 245 [para. 118]; 667 [para. 57]; 669 [para. 56]; 670 [para. 58]; 677 [para. 56]; 679 [para. 58]; 681 [paras. 58, 59].

Stuart, Don, Canadian Criminal Law (6th Ed. 2011), pp. 493, 494 [para. 86]; 512 [paras. 82, 84, footnotes 14, 15, 16, 17, 18]; 517 [para. 84, footnote 18]; 519 [para. 84, footnote 19].

Williams, Glanville, Criminal Law: The General Part (2nd Ed. 1961), pp. 575 [para. 73]; 576 [para. 70].

Williams, Glanville, Textbook of Criminal Law (1978), p. 403 [para. 92].

Counsel:

Robert A. Fata (Crown Prosecutors' Office), for the Crown;

Brian M. Hurley (Beresh Cunningham Aloneissi O'Neill Hurley), for the accused.

This trial was heard on May 6, 7 and 9, 2013, before Wakeling, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment and reasons for judgment, dated October 30, 2013.