R. v. Fontaine,

• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Judge: Huband, Monnin and Steel, JJ.A.
• Neutral Citation: 2002 MBCA 107
• Citation: (2002), 166 Man.R.(2d) 214 (CA),2002 MBCA 107,[2003] 1 WWR 634,168 CCC (3d) 263,7 CR (6th) 139,[2002] MJ No 263 (QL),166 Man R (2d) 214,[2002] M.J. No 263 (QL),166 ManR(2d) 214,166 Man.R.(2d) 214,(2002), 166 ManR(2d) 214 (CA)
• Date: 17 September 2002
• Court: Court of Appeal (Manitoba)

R. v. Fontaine (D.) (2002), 166 Man.R.(2d) 214 (CA);

    278 W.A.C. 214

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2002] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. OC.008

Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) v. Darrell Fontaine (accused/appellant)

(AR 01-30-04868; 2002 MBCA 107)

Indexed As: R. v. Fontaine (D.)

Manitoba Court of Appeal

Huband, Monnin and Steel, JJ.A.

September 17, 2002.

Summary:

The accused was convicted of one count of first degree murder, two counts of attempted murder, one count of criminal negligence causing death, and one count of criminal negligence causing bodily harm. He appealed, raising the issue of whether a person who intends to kill himself and instead kills another can be said to have the necessary intent to commit murder within the meaning of s. 229(b) of the Criminal Code. The accused also alleged that the trial judge erred in failing to disclose to counsel two notes sent by the jury to the judge.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. The court held that the trial judge erred when she charged the jury on the availability of s. 229(b) of the Criminal Code in these circumstances so as to give rise to a conviction for first degree murder. Since it was not known whether the jury convicted based on her instructions regarding transferred intent or her instructions regarding planned and deliberate murder, the curative proviso found in s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Code could not be utilized. Therefore, a new trial was ordered. The court stated that the failure to disclose to counsel two notes sent by the jury to the judge added to the conclusion that a new trial was required in this case.

Criminal Law - Topic 39.6

General principles - Mens rea or intention - Transferred intent - [See Criminal Law - Topic 1263 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 1263

Murder - Intention - The accused, while attempting to commit suicide during a high-speed chase killed a passenger in his car - The accused was convicted of first degree murder - The trial judge charged the jury on the principle of transfer of intent under s. 229(b) of the Criminal Code, whereby a person was deemed to have that specific intent to commit murder when, intending to kill one person, he mistakenly kills another person - The accused appealed, questioning whether s. 229(b) transferred the specific intent necessary for a murder charge, when instead of the accused attempting to murder someone else, he attempted to commit suicide and killed another person - The Manitoba Court of Appeal held that the words of s. 229(b) were capable of more than one meaning and, given that ambiguity, the statutory interpretation rule of strictly construing penal legislation in favour of the accused would result in a conclusion that s. 229(b) referred to the killing of another and not the killing of oneself - The court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial - See paragraphs 1 to 45.

Criminal Law - Topic 1267.1

Murder - Murder resulting from accidental death to person other than intended victim (incl. during suicide attempt) - [See Criminal Law - Topic 1263 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4306

Procedure - Jury - Communications with jury (incl. notes from jury) - During the course of deliberations at a murder trial, the jury sent two notes to the judge indicating that the jury was having trouble in reaching a verdict - The contents of the notes were not disclosed to counsel - Shortly thereafter, two jurors were released for illness - The accused was convicted - He appealed, arguing that the trial judge erred in not disclosing the contents of the notes to counsel (i.e., reading the notes in open court in the presence of the accused) - The Manitoba Court of Appeal held that the contents of the notes should have been disclosed where the matters raised were not purely administrative matters, but rather could have involved the vital interests of the accused - The court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial - See paragraphs 46 to 75.

Criminal Law - Topic 4391.1

Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Deadlocked jury exhortation - During an exhortation in a murder trial, the trial judge offered advice for any juror who might find himself or herself in the minority - The Manitoba Court of Appeal, in obiter, commented that an exhortation similar to the one given in this case could lead a trial judge into error - The court offered suggestions as to how to improve on such an exhortation - See paragraphs 76 to 83.

Criminal Law - Topic 4487

Procedure - Trial - Attendance of accused -[See Criminal Law - Topic 4306 ].

Words and Phrases

Cause death to a human being - The Manitoba Court of Appeal discussed the meaning of this phrase as it appeared in s. 229(b) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 - See paragraphs 10 to 45.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Brown, [1983] O.J. No. 264 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Droste, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 208; 52 N.R. 176; 3 O.A.C. 179, refd to. [para. 14, footnote 1].

R. v. Deakin (1974), 16 C.C.C.(2d) 1 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Hales v. Petit (1562), 1 Plowd. 253; 75 E.R. 387, refd to. [para. 16, footnote 2].

R. v. Hopwood (1913), 8 Cr. App. 143 (C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 16, footnote 2].

R. v. Spence (1957), 41 Cr. App. 80 (C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 16, footnote 2].

R. v. Ward Executor of Wentworth (1661), 1 Lev. 8; 83 E.R. 270, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Burgess (1862), Le. & Ca. 258; 169 E.R. 1387, refd to. [para. 19].

State v. Campbell (1933), 251 N.W. 717 (Iowa Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 22].

State v. Chrisholtz (1967), 285 N.Y.S.2d 231 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 22].

State v. Lindsey (1885), 5 P. 822 (Nev. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 22].

Dugan v. Commonwealth (1960), 333 S.W.2d 755 (Ky. C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

State v. Levelle (1891), 13 S.E. 319 (S.C. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 23].

London Life Insurance Co. v. Lang Shirt Co. (Trustee of), [1929] S.C.R. 117, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Creighton, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 3; 157 N.R. 1; 65 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Druken (J.K.) (2002), 211 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 219; 633 A.P.R. 219; 164 C.C.C.(3d) 115 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Hanley (K.A.) et al., [1998] A.R. Uned. 412 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

New Brunswick (Minister of Municipal Affairs) v. Bathurst Paper Ltd., [1972] S.C.R. 471; 4 N.B.R.(2d) 96, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. McIntosh (B.B.), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 686; 178 N.R. 161; 79 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. McLaughlin, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 331; 32 N.R. 350; 23 A.R. 530, refd to. [para. 35].

Marcotte v. Canada (Deputy Attorney General), [1976] 1 S.C.R. 108; 3 N.R. 613, refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Loscerbo (A.) (1994), 92 Man.R.(2d) 263; 61 W.A.C. 263 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex et al., [2002] 5 W.W.R. 1; 287 N.R. 248; 166 B.C.A.C. 1; 271 W.A.C. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Hasselwander, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 398; 152 N.R. 247; 62 O.A.C. 285, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Hertrich, Stewart and Skinner (1982), 67 C.C.C.(2d) 510 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. Barrow, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 694; 81 N.R. 321; 87 N.S.R.(2d) 271; 222 A.P.R. 271, refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. Tran (Q.D.), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 951; 170 N.R. 81; 133 N.S.R.(2d) 81; 380 A.P.R. 81, refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. Côté and Vézina, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 2; 64 N.R. 93, refd to. [para. 55].

R. v. Dunbar and Logan (1982), 68 C.C.C.(2d) 13 (Ont C.A.), refd to. [para. 56].

R. v. Hamilton (1980), 58 C.C.C.(2d) 467 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. Halliday (W.L.) (1992), 83 Man.R.(2d) 142; 36 W.A.C. 142 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 59].

R. v. Sophonow (1986), 38 Man.R.(2d) 198 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 61].

R. v. Pan (R.W.); R. v. Sawyer (B.) (1999), 120 O.A.C. 1; 134 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (C.A.), affd. [2001] 2 S.C.R. 344; 270 N.R. 317; 147 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 62].

Meunier v. R. (1965), 48 C.R. 14 (Que. Q.B.), affd. [1966] S.C.R. 399, refd to. [para. 65].

R. v. Cloutier (1988), 27 O.A.C. 246; 43 C.C.C.(3d) 35 (C.A.), leave to appeal dismissed 104 N.R. 160; 37 O.A.C. 320, refd to. [para. 66].

R. v. Guess (G.) (2000), 143 B.C.A.C. 51; 235 W.A.C. 51; 148 C.C.C.(3d) 321 (C.A.), leave to appeal dismissed (2001), 269 N.R. 398; 159 B.C.A.C. 177; 259 W.A.C. 177 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 66].

R. v. Chambers (No. 2), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1293; 119 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 69].

R. v. Hanna (K.D.) (1993), 27 B.C.A.C. 42; 45 W.A.C. 42; 80 C.C.C.(3d) 289 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 69].

R. v. Latimer, [1990] O.J. No. 401 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 71].

R. v. Laws (D.) (1998), 112 O.A.C. 353; 128 C.C.C.(3d) 516 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 74].

R. v. Sims, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 858; 139 N.R. 305; 10 B.C.A.C. 94; 21 W.A.C. 94, refd to. [para. 79].

R. v. R.M.G., [1996] 3 S.C.R. 362; 202 N.R. 1; 81 B.C.A.C. 81; 132 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 80].

R. v. Van Hook (R.) (1998), 168 Sask.R. 282; 173 W.A.C. 282 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 82].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 229(b) [para. 10]; sect. 650 [para. 53]; sect. 686(1)(b)(iv) [para. 66].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (15th Ed. 1809), vol. 4, p. 194 [para. 18].

Driedger, Elmer A., Construction of Statutes (3rd Ed. 1994), p. 450 [para. 31].

Counsel:

G.G. Brodsky, Q.C., and J.P. Miller, for the appellant;

B.G. Wilford, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on April 16, 2002, before Huband, Monnin and Steel, JJ.A., of the Manitoba Court of Appeal.

The decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered by Steel, J.A., on September 17, 2002.