R. v. Daoust (C.) et al., (2004) 316 N.R. 203 (SCC)

• Judge: Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel and Deschamps, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: October 08, 2003
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2004), 316 N.R. 203 (SCC);2004 SCC 6;[2004] ACS no 7;316 NR 203;235 DLR (4th) 216;[2004] SCJ No 7 (QL);18 CR (6th) 57;[2004] CarswellQue 139;180 CCC (3d) 449;[2004] 1 SCR 217

R. v. Daoust (C.) (2004), 316 N.R. 203 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Temp. Cite: [2004] N.R. TBEd. FE.028

Her Majesty the Queen (appellant) v. Claude Daoust and Éric Bois (respondents) and Attorney General of Canada and Attorney General of Ontario (interveners)

(29185; 2004 SCC 6; 2004 CSC 6)

Indexed As: R. v. Daoust (C.) et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel and Deschamps, JJ.

February 12, 2004.

Summary:

The two accused, the owner and the man­ager of a pawn shop, purchased merchandise from an undercover officer believing that it was stolen property. They were charged with compounding an indictable offence (Criminal Code, s. 141) and laundering proceeds of crime (s. 462.31(1)(a)).

The Court of Québec acquitted the accused of compounding an indictable offence, but convicted them of laundering proceeds of crime. The accused appealed.

The Quebec Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions and substi­tuted acquittals. The Crown appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 132

General principles - Rights of accused - Right to be informed of alleged offence - The two accused purchased merchandise from an undercover officer believing that it was stolen property - They were charged with laundering proceeds of crime (Crimi­nal Code, s. 462.31(1)(a)) - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the accused's acquittals, holding that the purchase did not constitute a "transfer of possession" as alleged in the indictment - The court re­fused the Crown's request to substitute a verdict of guilty of attempting to launder proceeds of crime - The court's analysis was limited by the theory advanced by the Crown at trial - It could not amend the indictment at this stage - Section 601(3) of the Code only permitted a court to amend a count in relation to a particular of the offence - Amending the count would not be a change of particulars, but rather of the act itself of which the accused stood ac­cused - To allow the Crown to make out a different offence would infringe the ac­cused's right to be reasonably informed of the transaction alleged against them - See paragraphs 66 to 70.

Criminal Law - Topic 1981.1

Offences against property - Possession or laundering of proceeds of crime - Actus reus - Section 462.31(1) of the Criminal Code made it an offence to launder pro­ceeds of crime - The French version of s. 462.31(1) listed the acts constituting the actus reus of the offence - The English version listed the same acts, but added "or otherwise deals with" certain property or proceeds - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the French version prevailed - Although each version was not ambiguous, they were irreconcilable - The common mean­ing of the two versions was the more restricted meaning found in the French version - Adopting the broader English version would be making an undue judicial amendment - Although the legislative his­tory showed that the English version re­flected Parliament's true intention to crimi­nalize all acts in relation to the pro­ceeds of crime where the intent was to conceal or con­vert them, the legislative intent revealed by the history had to be one that could rea­sonably be supported by the text of the stat­ute - That was not the case here - See paragraphs 24 to 47.

Criminal Law - Topic 1981.1

Offences against property - Possession or laundering of proceeds of crime - Actus reus - The two accused, an owner and man­ager of a pawn shop, purchased mer­chandise from an undercover officer be­lieving that it was stolen property - They were charged with laundering proceeds of crime (Criminal Code, s. 462.31(1)(a)) - The indictment alleged that the purchase was a "transfer of possession" within the meaning of s. 462.31(1)(a) - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the accused's acquittals - Section 462.31, as drafted, did not apply to the receiver of the property - The listed acts were essentially unilateral ones - The "transfer of possession" was the act of the person who had the control or possession of the object and then tried to pass it on to another - The offence was not aimed at the beneficiary - See paragraphs 48 to 53.

Criminal Law - Topic 1981.2

Offences against property - Possession or laundering of proceeds of crime - Intention or mens rea - Section 462.31(1) of the Criminal Code made it an offence to launder proceeds of crime - The offence required, inter alia, an intent to "conceal or convert" property or the proceeds of prop­erty - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the intent to "convert" did not require an intent to conceal or disguise - The court stated that "Parliament's choice of words is indicative of its inten­tion to forbid 'con­version' pure and simple, thereby ensuring that those who convert property they know or believe to have illicit origins, regardless of whether they try to conceal it or not, do not profit from it" - See paragraphs 56 to 65.

Criminal Law - Topic 1981.2

Offences against property - Possession or laundering of proceeds of crime - Intention or mens rea - Section 462.31(1) of the Criminal Code made it an offence to launder proceeds of crime - The offence required, inter alia, an intent to "conceal or convert" property or the proceeds of prop­erty - At issue was whether "intent to convert" required an element of conceal­ment or transformation - The noscitur a sociis rule provided that the meaning of a term may be revealed by its association with other terms where the latter may not be read in isolation - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the noscitur a sociis rule did not apply in this case - The rule was normally applied when interpreting terms in an enumeration - The words "conceal" and "convert" were not part of a list - On the contrary, they were two dis­tinct terms with distinct meanings - Parlia­ment's use of the word "or" showed an intent to distinguish the two terms from each other - Therefore, the two terms should not be read together - See para­graphs 60 and 61.

Criminal Law - Topic 4270.1

Procedure - Indictment - Amendment - In appeal - [See Criminal Law - Topic 132 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4736

Procedure - Information or indictment - Charge or count - Indictable offences - Amendment of - After close of trial or on appeal - [See Criminal Law - Topic 132 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4853

Appeals - Indictable offences - Grounds of appeal - Grounds raised for the first time on appeal - [See Criminal Law - Topic 132 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4968

Appeals - Indictable offences - Powers of Court of Appeal - Information or indict­ment - Amendment of - [See Criminal Law - Topic 132 ].

Statutes - Topic 1449

Interpretation - Construction where mean­ing is not plain - Aids or methods to deter­mine meaning - Legislative history - Gen­eral - [See first Criminal Law - Topic 1981.1 ].

Statutes - Topic 1641

Interpretation - Extrinsic aids - Legislative history - General - [See first Criminal Law - Topic 1981.1 ].

Statutes - Topic 1803

Interpretation - Intrinsic aids - Bilingual statutes - Interpretation of both versions (incl. where versions conflict) - The Supreme Court of Canada set out the following procedure for interpreting bilin­gual statutes: "The first step is to deter­mine whether there is discordance. If the two versions are irreconcilable, we must rely on other principles ... A purposive and contextual approach is favoured ... We must determine whether there is an ambi­guity, that is, whether one or both versions of the statute are 'reasonably capable of more than one meaning' ... If there is an ambiguity in one version but not the other, the two versions must be reconciled, that is, we must look for the meaning that is common to both versions ... The common meaning is the version that is plain and not ambiguous ... If neither version is ambigu­ous, or if they both are, the common meaning is normally the narrower version ... The second step is to determine whether the common or dominant meaning is, according to the ordinary rules of statutory interpretation, consistent with Parliament's intent ... Finally, we must also bear in mind that some principles of interpretation may only be applied in cases where there is an ambiguity in an enactment." - See paragraphs 27 to 31.

Statutes - Topic 1803

Interpretation - Intrinsic aids - Bilingual statutes - Interpretation of both versions (incl. where versions conflict) - [See first Criminal Law - Topic 1981.1 ].

Statutes - Topic 2612

Interpretation - Interpretation of words and phrases - Interpretation by context (incl. "modern rule") - Noscitur a sociis (from associated words) - [See second Criminal Law - Topic 1981.2 ].

Words and Phrases

Convert - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the meaning of the word "con­vert" as used in s. 462.31 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 - See para­graphs 56 to 65.

Words and Phrases

Transfer - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the meaning of the word "trans­fer" as used in s. 462.31 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 - See para­graphs 48 to 53.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Rooke and De Vries, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1020; 108 N.R. 234, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Saunders - see R. v. Rooke and De Vries.

R. v. Morozuk, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 31; 64 N.R. 189; 68 A.R. 241, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Elliott, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 393; 18 N.R. 485, refd to. [para. 22].

Schreiber v. Canada (Attorney General), [2002] 3 S.C.R. 269; 292 N.R. 250; 164 O.A.C. 354; 2002 SCC 62, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Mac (M.K.), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 856; 287 N.R. 75; 159 O.A.C. 33; 2002 SCC 24, refd to. [para. 26].

Chieu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 84; 280 N.R. 268; 2002 SCC 3, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Sharpe (J.R.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 45; 264 N.R. 201; 146 B.C.A.C. 161; 239 W.A.C. 161; 2001 SCC 2, refd to. [para. 27].

Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 559; 287 N.R. 248; 166 B.C.A.C. 1; 271 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 42, refd to. [para. 28].

Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. of Canada v. Eaton (T.) Co., [1956] S.C.R. 610, refd to. [para. 28].

Kwiatkowsky v. Minister of Employment and Immigration and Canada (Attorney General), [1982] 2 S.C.R. 856; 45 N.R. 116, refd to. [para. 28].

Gravel v. St-Leonard (City), [1978] 1 S.C.R. 660; 17 N.R. 486, refd to. [para. 29].

Pfizer Co. v. Deputy Minister of National Revenue (Customs and Excise), [1977] 1 S.C.R. 456; 6 N.R. 440, refd to. [para. 29].

Davidson v. Slaight Communications Inc., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1038; 93 N.R. 183, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Goldman, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 976; 30 N.R. 453, refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Gaysek, [1971] S.C.R. 888, refd to. [para. 45].

Montréal (Ville) v. ILGWU Center Inc., [1974] S.C.R. 59, refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Tejani (R.A.) (1999), 123 O.A.C. 329; 138 C.C.C.(3d) 366 (C.A.), consd. [para. 46].

New Brunswick (Minister of Municipal Affairs) v. Canaport Ltd., [1976] 2 S.C.R. 599; 7 N.R. 367; 12 N.B.R.(2d) 277; 10 A.P.R. 277, refd to. [para. 51].

R. v. Chartrand (J.), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 864; 170 N.R. 161; 74 O.A.C. 257, refd to. [para. 52].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Mossop, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 554; 149 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 52].

Quebec v. Carrières Ste-Thérèse ltée, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 831; 59 N.R. 391, refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. Morielli, [2000] R.J.Q. 364 (C.A.), consd. [para. 58].

R. v. Bouchard (1995), 45 C.R.(4th) 55 (Que. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 60].

2747-3174 Québec Inc. v. Régie des permis d'alcool du Québec et autres, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 919; 205 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 60].

Quebec (Procureur général) v. Laroche et al., [2002] 3 S.C.R. 708; 295 N.R. 291; 2002 SCC 72, refd to. [para. 63].

United States of America et al. v. Dynar, [1997] 2 S.C.R. 462; 213 N.R. 321; 101 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 68].

R. v. Poole (W.S.) (1997), 91 B.C.A.C. 279; 148 W.A.C. 279 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 68].

R. v. Côté, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 8; 13 N.R. 271, refd to. [para. 70].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 462.31(1) [para. 1].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Côté, Pierre-André M., The Interpretation of Legislation in Canada (3rd Ed. 2000), pp. 278 [para. 52]; 313 [paras. 51, 60]; 324 [para. 26]; 327 [paras. 27, 28, 29]; 328, 329 [para. 30].

German, Peter M., Proceeds of Crime: The Criminal Law, Related Statutes, Regula­tions and Agreements (1998), generally [para. 62].

Counsel:

Louis Coulombe and Daniel Grégoire, for the appellant;

Jean Asselin and Sophie Dubé, for the respondents;

Bernard Laprade and Martin Lamontagne, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Canada;

John Corelli and Leanne Salel, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Ontario.

Solicitors of Record:

Attorney General's Prosecutors for Quebec, Sainte-Foy, Quebec, for the appel­lant;

Labrecque Robitaille Roberge Asselin & Associés, Québec, Quebec, for the re­spondents;

Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Canada;

Ministry of the Attorney General, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Ontario.

This appeal was heard on October 8, 2003, by Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel and Deschamps, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The following decision of the court was delivered in both official languages, on February 12, 2004, by Bastarache, J.