R. v. Fontaine (J.), (2004) 318 N.R. 371 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel, Deschamps and Fish, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: April 22, 2004
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2004), 318 N.R. 371 (SCC);2004 SCC 27;[2004] CarswellQue 814;JE 2004-933;[2004] 1 SCR 702;318 NR 371;AZ-50231697;18 CR (6th) 203;[2004] SCJ No 23 (QL);237 DLR (4th) 577;183 CCC (3d) 1

R. v. Fontaine (J.) (2004), 318 N.R. 371 (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. AP.027

Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. Jacques Fontaine (respondent)

(29198; 2004 SCC 27; 2004 CSC 27)

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

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel, Deschamps and Fish, JJ.

April 22, 2004.

Summary:

The accused was charged with first degree murder. The accused wished to have the defence of mental disorder automatism placed before the jury, but the trial judge withheld the defence on the ground that the required evidential foundation was not pres­ent. The jury convicted the accused of first degree murder. The accused appealed.

The Quebec Court of Appeal, in a judg­ment reported (2002), 6 C.R.(6th) 164, al­lowed the appeal and ordered a new trial. The court held that the evidence by the ac­cused and a psychiatrist satisfied the evi­dential burden and the trial judge erred in failing to place the defence before the jury. The Crown appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal. The Court of Appeal was correct to find that there was evidence upon which a properly instructed jury could reasonably, on account of that evidence, conclude in the accused's favour (ie. evidential burden met).

Criminal Law - Topic 4386

Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Judge's duty to determine if defence available on evidence - The ac­cused was charged with first degree mur­der - The trial judge, after weighing the evidence by the accused in support of men­tal disorder automatism, held that the accused failed to discharge the evidential burden required for leaving the defence with the jury - That decision was over­turned on appeal and a new trial ordered - The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the Crown's appeal - An "evidential bur­den" was not a burden of proof - The trial judge was not to evaluate the quality, weight or reliability of the evidence - The defence was to be left with the jury if there was evidence upon which a properly instructed jury, acting reasonably, could reasonably deter­mine the issue (ie. air of reality) - The trial judge erred in assessing the likely success of the defence - Based on the accused's testimony and the expert opinion of a psychiatrist, the Court of Appeal did not err in determining that the accused met the evidential burden and the defence should have been left with the jury.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Stone (B.T.), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 290; 239 N.R. 201; 123 B.C.A.C. 1; 201 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Arcuri (G.), [2001] 2 S.C.R. 828; 274 N.R. 274; 150 O.A.C. 126; 2001 SCC 54, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Cinous (J.), [2002] 2 S.C.R. 3; 285 N.R. 1; 2002 SCC 29, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Capson, [1954] 1 S.C.R. 44, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Thibert (N.E.), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 37; 192 N.R. 1; 178 A.R. 321; 110 W.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Charemski (J.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 679; 224 N.R. 120; 108 O.A.C. 126, refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Schwartz, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 443; 88 N.R. 90; 56 Man.R.(2d) 92, refd to. [para. 56].

R. v. W.D.S., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 521; 171 N.R. 360; 157 A.R. 321; 77 W.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 73].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Cross and Tapper on Evidence (9th Ed. 1999), p. 138 [para. 51].

McCormick on Evidence (5th Ed. 1999), vol. 2, p. 417 [para. 51].

Counsel:

Joanne Marceau and Sébastien Bergeron-Guyard, for the appellant;

Sébastien St-Laurent, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

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

Sébastien St-Laurent, Quebec, Quebec, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on November 6, 2003, before McLachlin, C.J.C., Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel, Deschamps and Fish, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On April 22, 2004, Fish, J., delivered the fol­lowing judgment in both official lan­guag­es for the Court.