R. v. Duhamel, (1984) 57 A.R. 204 (SCC)

JudgeBeetz, Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard and Lamer, JJ.
CourtSupreme Court (Canada)
Case DateDecember 13, 1984
JurisdictionCanada (Federal)
Citations(1984), 57 A.R. 204 (SCC);57 NR 162;15 CCC (3d) 491;[1984] 2 SCR 555;[1985] 2 WWR 251;JE 85-71;1984 CanLII 126 (SCC);43 CR (3d) 1;35 Alta LR (2d) 1;14 DLR (4th) 92;57 AR 204

R. v. Duhamel (1984), 57 A.R. 204 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Duhamel

Indexed As: R. v. Duhamel

Supreme Court of Canada

Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard and Lamer, JJ.

December 13, 1984.

Summary:

The accused was charged with two counts of armed robbery. During a voir dire in the trial for the first robbery the trial judge ruled that statements made by the accused were not voluntary and were inadmissible and the accused was acquitted. At the trial for the other robbery a different trial judge ruled that the statements were voluntary and admissible. The accused was convicted. He appealed on the ground that the Crown was estopped from re-litigating the question of the voluntariness of the statements.

The Alberta Court of Appeal in a judgment reported [1982] 1 W.W.R. 127; 33 A.R. 271; 131 D.L.R.(3d) 352; 64 C.C.C.(2d) 538; 25 C.R.(3d) 53; 17 Alta. L.R.(2d) 127, dismissed the appeal. The court held that issue estoppel did not arise, because the ruling on admissibility of the statements was merely collateral to and was not fundamental to the verdict. The accused appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal. The court refused to extend issue estoppel to an issue decided in an interlocutory proceeding, such as a voir dire.

Criminal Law - Topic 91

Estoppel - Collateral issues decided in prior proceedings - Voluntariness of statements by accused - Statements of an accused were ruled inadmissible in a voir dire in one trial, but were admitted in a trial on another charge - The accused submitted that the Crown was estopped from re-litigating admissibility of the statements - The Supreme Court of Canada refused to apply issue estoppel to an interlocutory proceeding, such as the voir dire in the prior proceeding.

Estoppel - Topic 376

Estoppel by record - Res judicata as bar to subsequent proceedings - General - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the purpose of the doctrine of res judicata respecting fairness to the accused and the efficiency and reputation of the judicial system.

Estoppel - Topic 382

Estoppel by record - Res judicata as bar to subsequent proceedings - Interlocutory proceedings - Voir dire - The Supreme Court of Canada refused to apply issue estoppel to an issue (the admissibility of statements) decided in a voir dire in another trial.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Gushue, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 798; 30 N.R. 204, appld. [para. 5].

People v. Williams, 322 N.E.(2d) 461 (1975), refd to. [para. 13].

People v. Gray, 222 N.W.(2d) 515 (1974), refd to. [para. 13].

People v. Mann, 280 N.W.(2d) 577 (1979), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Bellisimo (1980), 4 W.C.B. 453 (Ont. C.C.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Kienapple, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729; 1 N.R. 322, consd. [para. 15].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Fortin, Jacques, Preuve Penale (1984) [para. 16].

Friedland, Martin L., Double Jeopardy (1969) [para. 16].

Kaufman, Fred, The Admissibility of Confessions (3rd Ed. 1979), p. 35 [para. 11].

Spencer-Bower and Turner, The Doctrine of Res Judicata (2nd Ed. 1969) [para. 6].

Counsel:

John James, for the accused appellant;

Peter Martin, for the Crown respondent.

This case was heard on February 16, 1984, at Ottawa, Ontario, before Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On December 13, 1984, Lamer, J., delivered the following judgment for the Supreme Court of Canada:

To continue reading

Request your trial
117 practice notes
  • R. v. Trang (D.) et al., (2001) 295 A.R. 250 (QB)
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • May 16, 2001
    ...44 C.R.(4th) 274 (C.A.), reving. (1995), 146 N.S.R.(2d) 162; 422 A.P.R. 163 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 36, footnote 9]. R. v. Duhamel, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 555; 57 N.R. 162; 57 A.R. 204; 15 C.C.C.(3d) 491; [1985] 2 W.W.R. 251; 14 D.L.R.(4th) 92; 43 C.R.(3d) 1; 35 Alta. L.R.(2d) 1, affing. [1982] 2 ......
  • R. v. Ticknovich (N.M.), 2003 ABQB 597
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • July 3, 2003
    ...C.C.C.(3d) 97; 191 D.L.R.(4th) 539; 36 C.R.(5th) 223; 78 C.R.R.(2d) 53; 2000 SCC 46, refd to. [para. 7, footnote 5]. R. v. Duhamel, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 555; 57 N.R. 162; 57 A.R. 204; 15 C.C.C.(3d) 491; [1985] 2 W.W.R. 251; 14 D.L.R.(4th) 92; 43 C.R.(3d) 1; 35 Alta. L.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 8......
  • R. v. Wilder (D.M.), [2001] B.C.T.C. 1599 (SC)
    • Canada
    • British Columbia Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • November 27, 2001
    ...[para. 5]. R. v. White (J.K.) (1998), 102 B.C.A.C. 28; 166 W.A.C. 28; 122 C.C.C.(3d) 167 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6]. R. v. Duhamel, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 555; 57 N.R. 162; 57 A.R. 204; 15 C.C.C.(3d) 491, refd to. [para. 23]. R. v. Martin (1991), 43 O.A.C. 378; 2 O.R.(3d) 16; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 71 (C.A......
  • R. v. Badgerow (R.), (2014) 321 O.A.C. 1 (CA)
    • Canada
    • Ontario Court of Appeal (Ontario)
    • December 18, 2013
    ...remedy here. The Crown can re-litigate the admissibility rulings made by the trial judge at the new trial: see R. v. Duhamel , [1984] 2 S.C.R. 555. [193] Although this court's decision in James came after the respondent's 2008 appeal, in my view, the Crown's failure to raise the issue in re......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
109 cases
  • R. v. Trang (D.) et al., (2001) 295 A.R. 250 (QB)
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • May 16, 2001
    ...44 C.R.(4th) 274 (C.A.), reving. (1995), 146 N.S.R.(2d) 162; 422 A.P.R. 163 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 36, footnote 9]. R. v. Duhamel, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 555; 57 N.R. 162; 57 A.R. 204; 15 C.C.C.(3d) 491; [1985] 2 W.W.R. 251; 14 D.L.R.(4th) 92; 43 C.R.(3d) 1; 35 Alta. L.R.(2d) 1, affing. [1982] 2 ......
  • R. v. Ticknovich (N.M.), 2003 ABQB 597
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • July 3, 2003
    ...C.C.C.(3d) 97; 191 D.L.R.(4th) 539; 36 C.R.(5th) 223; 78 C.R.R.(2d) 53; 2000 SCC 46, refd to. [para. 7, footnote 5]. R. v. Duhamel, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 555; 57 N.R. 162; 57 A.R. 204; 15 C.C.C.(3d) 491; [1985] 2 W.W.R. 251; 14 D.L.R.(4th) 92; 43 C.R.(3d) 1; 35 Alta. L.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 8......
  • R. v. Wilder (D.M.), [2001] B.C.T.C. 1599 (SC)
    • Canada
    • British Columbia Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • November 27, 2001
    ...[para. 5]. R. v. White (J.K.) (1998), 102 B.C.A.C. 28; 166 W.A.C. 28; 122 C.C.C.(3d) 167 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6]. R. v. Duhamel, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 555; 57 N.R. 162; 57 A.R. 204; 15 C.C.C.(3d) 491, refd to. [para. 23]. R. v. Martin (1991), 43 O.A.C. 378; 2 O.R.(3d) 16; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 71 (C.A......
  • R. v. Badgerow (R.), (2014) 321 O.A.C. 1 (CA)
    • Canada
    • Ontario Court of Appeal (Ontario)
    • December 18, 2013
    ...remedy here. The Crown can re-litigate the admissibility rulings made by the trial judge at the new trial: see R. v. Duhamel , [1984] 2 S.C.R. 555. [193] Although this court's decision in James came after the respondent's 2008 appeal, in my view, the Crown's failure to raise the issue in re......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
1 books & journal articles

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT