R. v. Flemming, (1980) 43 N.S.R.(2d) 249 (CoCt)

• Case Date: November 21, 1980
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: (1980), 43 N.S.R.(2d) 249 (CoCt)

R. v. Flemming (1980), 43 N.S.R.(2d) 249 (CoCt);

    81 A.P.R. 249

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Flemming

(CH 32722)

Indexed As: R. v. Flemming

Nova Scotia County Court

District Number One

O Hearn, C.C.J.

November 21, 1980.

Summary:

The Crown appealed an acquittal of the accused on a charge of driving while disqualified under s. 238(3) of the Criminal Code. The accused was aware that his driver's license had been revoked. The accused testified at trial that he had called the Motor Vehicle Branch, Driver Improvement Department, and checked with the inspectors, who told him that he did not need a license to steer a car that was being towed. On the date charged, the accused was assisting in the towing of a 1967 Humber Sedan. The sedan was attached by chains to a vehicle, and the defendant was sitting in the driver's seat of the Humber, braking and steering. The sedan was inoperable at the time of the alleged offence and was inoperable at the date of trial. The Provincial Court judge dismissed the charge, being satisfied that there was no mens rea.

The Nova Scotia County Court of District Number One dismissed the Crown's appeal. The County Court held that officially induced error of law was a defence at common law and that the defence had been established.

Criminal Law - Topic 212

General principles - Common law defences - Officially induced error of law - The Nova Scotia County Court held that officially induced error of law was a defence at common law - The court stated that the common law defences contemplated by s. 7(3) of the Criminal Code did not cease to evolve and accordingly there was scope for a possible development of the defence of officially induced error - The county court stated that two qualifications were important: (1) that the official whose advice was followed was involved in the administration of the law in question, so that it was reasonable, in the circumstances, to follow his opinion (2) that the opinion itself should appear to be reasonable in the circumstances - See paragraphs 44 to 56.

Criminal Law - Topic 228

General principles - Statutory defences or exceptions - Mistake of law - The Nova Scotia County Court distinguished an error of law and an error of fact and discussed the defence of the mistake of law - See paragraphs 21 to 43.

Criminal Law - Topic 1390

Offences against person and reputation - Driving while disqualified - Elements of offence - The Nova Scotia County Court discussed the elements of the offence of driving while disqualified under s. 238(3) of the Criminal Code.

Criminal Law - Topic 7478

Summary conviction proceedings - Appeals - General - Notice of appeal, form and content of - The Crown appealed the acquittal of the accused on a charge of driving while disqualified - The third ground of appeal alleged that the trial judge erred "in holding that the Crown had not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt" - The accused objected that the grounds were insufficiently stated - The Nova Scotia County Court stated that the Summary Conviction Appeal Rules, Rule 1(1)(c), requires the appellant to set forth with reasonable certainty "what order the appellant asked the court to make, and the grounds or reasons therefore" - The County Court stated that it doubted that the third ground complied sufficiently with the order - Because the question was raised at the original trial and the accused had an ample opportunity to deal with the point, the court was prepared to allow an amendment to the notice of appeal if necessary - See paragraph 61.

Evidence - Topic 1229

Relevant facts - Relevance and materiality - State of mind - Intent - The Nova Scotia County Court held that a statement made to a person is receivable in evidence to show the state of mind of that person if that state of mind is relevant - See paragraph 4.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Baltzer (1974), 10 N.S.R.(2d) 561; 2 A.P.R. 561; 27 C.C.C.(2d) 118 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 4].

Subramaniam v. Public Prosecutor, [1956] 1 W.L.R. 965 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 4].

R. (Director of Public Prosecutions) v. Christie, [1914] A.C. 545; 10 Cr. App. R. 141; 24 Cox C.C. 249 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 4].

Phillion v. R., [1978] 1 S.C.R. 18; 14 N.R. 371, refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Pisani (1971), 5 C.C.C.(2d) 133 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Willis, [1960] 1 All E.R. 331 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Cluney (1972), 5 C.C.C.(2d) 181, refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Irwin, [1957] O.W.N. 506, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Spear Chief (1960), 42 C.R. 78; 45 W.W.R.(N.S.) 161 (Alta.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. McKenzie, [1961] O.W.N. 344, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Hindbull (1961), 34 W.W.R.(N.S.) 522; 131 C.C.C. 81 (Alta.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. MacLean (1974), 17 C.C.C.(2d) 84, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Munro (1959), 125 C.C.C. 317; 22 D.L.R.(2d) 443; 32 C.R. 9 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Molis (1980), 33 N.R. 411, refd to. [para. 7].

Saunders v. R., [1967] 3 C.C.C. 278; 1 C.R.N.S. 249, consd. [para. 11].

R. v. Henry (1934), 61 C.C.C. 207 (Man. C.A.), consd. [para. 11].

R. v. Morton (1970), 12 C.R.N.S. 327; 75 W.W.R.(N.S.) 335 (B.C.), consd. [para. 11].

R. v. Roberts, [1964] 2 All E.R. 541, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Jollimore (1961), 36 C.R. 300; 131 C.C.C. 319; 46 M.P.R. 283, consd. [para. 17].

R. v. Prue; R. v. Baril, [1979] 4 W.W.R. 554; 26 N.R. 470; 8 C.R.(3d) 68; 2 M.V.R. 14; 46 C.C.C.(2d) 257, consd. [para. 18]; dist. [para. 57].

R. v. Villeneuve, [1968] 1 C.C.C. 67; 2 C.R.N.S. 301, consd. [para. 18].

R. v. Ooms, [1973] 4 W.W.R. 767; 11 C.C.C.(2d) 69 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Finn, [1972] 3 O.R. 509; 8 C.C.C.(2d) 233 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Mudryk (1977), 1 C.R.(3d) 160; 38 C.C.C.(2d) 259; 7 A.R. 479 (Alta. C.A.), affirmed (1978), 24 N.R. 268; 14 A.R. 405; 6 C.R.(3d) 94; 42 C.C.C.(2d) 448 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Sault Ste. Marie, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1299; 21 N.R. 295; 3 C.R.(3d) 30; 40 C.C.C.(2d) 353; 85 D.L.R.(3d) 161 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Campbell and Mlynarchuk, [1973] 2 W.W.R. 246; 10 C.C.C.(2d) 26; 21 C.R.N.S. 273 (Alta. D.C.), refd to. [para. 24].

Schwartz v. R., [1977] 1 S.C.R. 673; 8 N.R. 585; 29 C.C.C.(2d) 1; 34 C.R.N.S. 138; 67 D.L.R.(3d) 716, refd to. [para. 25].

Cooper v. Phibbs, L.R. 2 H.L. 150, consd. [para. 26].

R. v. Tolson (1889), L.R. 33 Q.B.D. 168, consd. [para. 28].

Pappajohn v. R. (1980), 14 C.R.(3d) 243; 32 N.R. 104 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 28].

Beaver v. R., [1957] S.C.R. 531; 118 C.C.C. 129 (S.C.C.), [para. 28].

Watts and Gaunt v. R. (1953), 16 C.R. 290 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 31].

Shymkowich (1954), 19 C.R. 401 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Tinkler (1859), 1 F. & F. 513; 175 E.R. 832, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Kerr (1965), 47 C.R. 268 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. De Marco (1973), 13 C.C.C.(2d) 369 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Pace, [1965] 3 C.C.C. 55 (N.S.C.A.), consd. [para. 31].

D.P.P. v. Beard, [1920] A.C. 479 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 33].

Hyam v. D.P.P., [1974] 2 All E.R. 41; 59 Cr. App. R. 91; [1974] 2 W.L.R. 607; 137 J.P. 374 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 33].

D.P.P. v. Morgan, [1975] 2 All E.R. 347; [1975] 2 W.L.R. 913; 139 J.P. 476; 119 Sol. J.O. 319 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 33].

D.P.P. v. Majewski, [1976] 2 All E.R. 142; 62 Cr. App. R. 262; [1976] 2 W.L.R. 623; 140 J.P. 315; 120 Sol. Jo. 299 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 33].

Leary v. R., [1977] 2 W.W.R. 628; 13 N.R. 592; 33 C.C.C.(2d) 473; 74 D.L.R.(3d) 103; 37 C.R.N.S. 60, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. MacLean (1974), 17 C.C.C.(2d) 84, refd to. [para. 34].

Long v. State (Delaware) (1949), 65 A.(2d) 489; 5 Terry 262, refd to. [para. 34].

Johnson v. Sargant & Sons, [1918] 1 K.B. 101, refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Ross, [1945] 3 D.L.R. 574; 84 C.C.C. 107; [1945] 1 W.W.R. 590 (B.C.) refd to. [para. 34].

Lim Chin Aik v. R., [1963] A.C. 160, consd. [para. 35].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 7(3) [paras. 42, 44 and 47]; sect. 19 [paras. 30-45 and 49].

Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. I-23, sect. 27(2) [para. 38].

Statutory Instruments Act, S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 38, sect. 11(2) [para. 38].

Motor Vehicle Act, R.S.N.S. 1967, c. 191, sect. 57(1) [paras. 8 and 9]; sect. 1(k) [para. 8]; sect. 1(ae) [para. 8]; sect. 1(ak) [para. 8]; sect. 1(bu) [para. 8]; sect. 1(bz) [para. 8].

Interpretation Act, R.S.N.S. 1967, c. 151, sect. 8(1) [para. 9]; sect. 18(j) [para. 13].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Barton, P.G., Officially Induced Error as a Criminal Defence: A Preliminary Look (1980), 22 Cr. L.Q. 314.

Blackstone, Commentaries [para. 23].

Corpus Juris Secundum, Vol. 22, S. 48, p. 185 [para. 31]; pp. 183 to 185 [para. 34].

Hall, Jerome, General Principles of Criminal Law (2nd Ed. 1960) [para. 34].

Justinian's Digest, Lib. 22, Tit. 6 [para. 23].

Kenny's Outlines of Criminal Law (16th Ed. 1952), p. 48 [para. 31].

Mewett and Manning, Criminal Law (1978), pp. 279-294 [para. 46].

Rutherford, G.S., (1946), 24 Can. Bar Rev. 151 [para. 34].

Samek, Robert, The Legal Point of View (1974) [para. 22].

Stephen, Digest of the Criminal Law (8th Ed.), p. 11 [para. 30].

Stephen, History of the Criminal Law of England, Vol. 3, p. 124 [para. 31].

Stroud, Mens Rea (1st Ed. 1914), pp. 56-60 [para. 32].

Granville Williams, Criminal Law (2nd Ed. 1961), S. 102, pp. 289f [para. 24]; S. 100, p. 287 [paras. 26 and 34].

Counsel:

Adrian C. Reid, for the Attorney General, appellant;

G. Michael Owen, for the respondent.

This case was heard before O HEARN, C.C.J., of the Nova Scotia County Court of District Number One.

The judgment of O HEARN, C.C.J., was delivered on November 21, 1980.