R. v. G.R., (2005) 337 N.R. 1 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court of Canada
• Case Date: Friday July 22, 2005
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2005), 337 N.R. 1 (SCC);2005 SCC 45;30 CR (6th) 201;[2005] SCJ No 45 (QL);198 CCC (3d) 161;337 NR 1;255 DLR (4th) 579;[2005] 2 SCR 371;[2005] ACS no 45

R. v. G.R. (2005), 337 N.R. 1 (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: [2005] N.R. TBEd. JL.006

Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. G.R. (respondent)

(30108; 2005 SCC 45; 2005 CSC 45)

Indexed As: R. v. G.R.

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron, JJ.

July 22, 2005.

Summary:

The accused was charged with incest with his daughter contrary to s. 155(2) of the Criminal Code. The trial judge found the ac­cused guilty of attempted incest. The accused appealed. On appeal, the Crown conceded in­sufficient proof of attempted incest, but invited the court to find the accused guilty of the lesser included offences of sexual inter­ference and sexual assault.

The Quebec Court of Appeal allowed the ap­peal and substituted an acquittal. The court held that sexual interference and sexual as­sault were not included offences. The Crown appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, Abella, Bas­tarache, LeBel and Deschamps, JJ., dis­senting, dismissed the appeal.

Editor's Note: Certain names in the follow­ing case have been initialized or the case otherwise edited to prevent the disclosure of identities where required by law, publication ban, Maritime Law Book's editorial policy or otherwise.

Criminal Law - Topic 4225

Procedure - Pleas - Plea of autrefois acquit - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4468.1].

Criminal Law - Topic 4450

Procedure - Verdicts - Included offences - General principles - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "an offence is 'in­clud­ed' if its elements are embraced in the of­fence charged (as described in the enact­ment creating it or as charged in the count) or if it is expressly stated to be an included offence in the Criminal Code itself. The test is strict. It must 'necessarily' be in­cluded. ... s. 662 authorizes convictions for 'included' offences in only three cat­egor­ies: (a) offences included by statute, e.g. those offences specified in s. 662(2) to (6), and attempts provided for in s. 660; (b) of­fences included in the enactment creating the offence charged, e.g. common assault in a charge of sexual assault; (c) offences which become included by the addition of apt words of description to the principal charge." - See paragraphs 25, 29.

Criminal Law - Topic 4468.1

Procedure - Verdicts - Included offences - Inclusion in incest - The accused was charged in an indictment that he "did com­mit incest with C.R., knowing that person to be his daughter" - The Supreme Court of Canada held that sexual assault and sexual interference with a young per­son un­der age 14 were not included of­fences under the offence of incest - The indict­ment did not include allegations of lack of consent or that the daughter was under age 14 - These were elements of the offences of sexual assault and sexual inter­ference - An accused was entitled to notice, on the face of the indictment, of the jeopardy he faced - Whether the accused had personal knowledge that his daughter did not con­sent and was under the age of 14 was ir­rel­evant - The elements of sexual assault and sexual interference, which required proof of lack of consent and age, were not em­braced in the offence of incest, because incest could be committed without com­mitting a sexual assault or sexual inference (i.e. consent and age irrelevant to incest) - As a corollary, the court stated that the ac­cused's acquittal did not pre­clude the Crown from charging him with sexual as­sault and/or sexual interference - Autre­fois acquit did not apply, because the accused was never in jeopardy of being convicted of sexual assault or sexual inter­ference based on the allegations in the indictment charged.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Plank (1986), 15 O.A.C. 21; 28 C.C.C.(3d) 386 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. Guérin, [1996] Q.J. No. 3746 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

Brodie v. R., [1936] S.C.R. 188, refd to. [paras. 15, 59].

R. v. Douglas and Douris, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 301; 122 N.R. 1; 47 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. M.S. (1996), 84 B.C.A.C. 104; 137 W.A.C. 104; 111 C.C.C.(3d) 467 (C.A.), leave to apeal refused, [1997] 1 S.C.R. ix; 87 B.C.A.C. 80; 143 W.A.C. 80, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. R.P.F. (1996), 149 N.S.R.(2d) 91; 432 A.P.R. 91; 105 C.C.C.(3d) 435 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. M.S., [1994] B.C.J. No. 1028 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Ewanchuk (S.B.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 330; 235 N.R. 323; 232 A.R. 1; 195 W.A.C. 1; 131 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [paras. 22, 65].

R. v. Bernier (J.) (1997), 119 C.C.C.(3d) 467 (Que. C.A.), affd. [1998] 1 S.C.R. 975; 226 N.R. 364, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Hess; R. v. Nguyen, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 906; 119 N.R. 353; 46 O.A.C. 13; 73 Man.R.(2d) 1; 3 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Lafrance, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 201, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Fergusson, [1962] S.C.R. 229, refd to. [paras. 25, 56].

Barton v. R., [1929] S.C.R. 42, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Manuel (1960), 128 C.C.C. 383 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [paras. 26, 57].

R. v. Simpson (No. 2) (1981), 58 C.C.C.(2d) 122 (Ont. C.A.), leave to appeal refused, [1981] 1 S.C.R. xiii, refd to. [paras. 27, 56].

R. v. Harmer and Miller (1976), 33 C.C.C.(2d) 17 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [paras. 27, 56].

R. v. Drolet (1988), 14 M.V.R.(2d) 50 (Que. C.A.), affd. [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1107; 138 N.R. 305; 55 Q.A.C. 59, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Allard (1990), 36 Q.A.C. 137 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Colburne (1991), 66 C.C.C.(3d) 235 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Morehouse (1982), 38 N.B.R.(2d) 367; 100 A.P.R. 367; 65 C.C.C.(2d) 231 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused, [1982] 1 S.C.R. xi; 42 N.R. 173; 40 N.B.R.(2d) 90; 105 A.P.R. 90; 65 C.C.C.(2d) 231, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Angevine (1984), 61 N.S.R.(2d) 263; 133 A.P.R. 263 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Taylor (1991), 105 N.S.R.(2d) 305; 285 A.P.R. 305; 66 C.C.C.(3d) 262 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Webber (L.J.) (1995), 65 B.C.A.C. 161; 106 W.A.C. 161; 102 C.C.C.(3d) 248 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Rowley (R.) et al. (1999), 127 O.A.C. 35; 140 C.C.C.(3d) 361 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Beyo (D.) (2000), 131 O.A.C. 150; 144 C.C.C.(3d) 15 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [2000] 2 S.C.R. vi; 263 N.R. 392; 145 O.A.C. 198 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Wilmot, [1940] S.C.R. 53, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Quinton, [1947] S.C.R. 234, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Lucas (M.) (1987), 10 Q.A.C. 47; 34 C.C.C.(3d) 28 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Lépine, [1993] R.J.Q. 88 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Carey (1972), 10 C.C.C.(2d) 330 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

Tousignant v. R. (1960), 130 C.C.C. 285 (Que. Q.B.), refd to. [paras. 32, 57].

R. v. Kay, [1958] O.J. No. 467 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Woods, [1969] 1 Q.B. 447 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

Cullen v. R., [1949] S.C.R. 658, refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Rinnie, [1970] 3 C.C.C. 218 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Connolly (1867), 26 U.C.R. 317, refd to. [para. 58].

R. v. Loftus (1926), 45 C.C.C. 390 (Ont. App. Div.), refd to. [para. 58].

R. v. MacDonald (1952), 102 C.C.C. 337 (N.S.S.C.), refd to. [para. 58].

R. v. G.B. et al. (No. 2), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 30; 111 N.R. 31; 86 Sask.R. 111, refd to. [para. 61].

R. v. Sault Ste. Marie (City), [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1299; 21 N.R. 295, refd to. [para. 61].

R. v. R.I.C. (1986), 17 O.A.C. 354; 32 C.C.C.(3d) 399 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 63].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 662(1) [para. 10].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canada, Law Reform Commission, Report on Sexual Offences (1978), p. 26 [para. 21].

Ewaschuk, Eugene G., Criminal Pleadings and Practice in Canada (2nd Ed. 1987) (Looseleaf), vol. 1, p. 9-5 [para. 58].

Gloin, Peter J., Included Offences (1961-62), 4 Crim. L.Q. 160, p. 160 [para. 31].

Ingram, Martin, Church Courts, Sex and Marriage in England, 1570-1640 (1990), p. 366 [para. 16].

Salhany, Roger E., Canadian Criminal Pro­cedure (4th Ed. 1984), p. 214 [para. 63].

Salhany, Roger E., Canadian Criminal Pro­ce­dure (6th Ed. 1994) (2005 Loose­leaf Update), para. 6.4650 [para. 30]; pp. 6-24.10 to 6-26 [para. 58].

Williams, Glanville, Included Offences (1991), 55 J. Crim. L. 234, p. 234 [para. 11].

Counsel:

Joanne Marceau and Annie-Claude Berger­on, for the appellant;

Line Boivin and Karine Piché, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Deputy Attorney General of Quebec, Que­bec, Quebec, for the appellant;

Boulet, Boivin, Gionet, Duchesne, Thibault & Savard, Quebec, Quebec, for the re­spondent.

This appeal was heard on December 17, 2004, before McLachlin, C.J.C., Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On July 22, 2005, the judgment of the Court was delivered in both official lan­guag­es and the following opinions were filed:

Binnie, J. (McLachlin, C.J.C., Major, Fish and Charron, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 43;

Abella, J. (Bastarache, LeBel and Deschamps, JJ., concurring), dissenting - see paragraphs 44 to 70.