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 (Canada) |
Case Date | 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.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
R. v. K.D.H., (2012) 546 A.R. 248 (QB)
...161]. R. v. R.P.F. et al. (1996), 149 N.S.R.(2d) 91; 432 A.P.R. 91; 105 C.C.C.(3d) 435 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 168]. R. v. G.R., [2005] 2 S.C.R. 371; 337 N.R. 1; 2005 SCC 45, refd to. [para. R. v. N.Y. (2003), 346 A.R. 146; 320 W.A.C. 146; 2003 ABCA 353, refd to. [para. 170]. R. v. S.K., [1......
-
Table of cases
...R v Gowdy, 2016 ONCA 989, 135 OR (3d) 371 .................................................. 455 R v GR, [2005] 2 SCR 371, 198 CCC (3d) 161, 2005 SCC 45 ............................ 487 R v Gralewicz, [1980] 2 SCR 493, 54 CCC (2d) 289, [1980] SCJ No 87 ........... 397 R v Grandine, 2017 ONC......
-
The Trial Process
...imposes few restrictions. 21 Section 589 prevents any charge from being joined with murder, though even this rule is 15 R v GR , [2005] 2 SCR 371 at para 2. 16 “Count” is defined in s 2 of the Code as a “charge in an information or indictment.” 17 Section 581(1). 18 See the discussion of R ......
-
The Trial Process
...C.A.), leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused, [1985] 1 S.C.R. v; Stolar , ibid . 11 R. v. Chabot , [1980] 2 S.C.R. 985. 12 R. v. G.R. , [2005] 2 S.C.R. 371, 2005 SCC 45 at para. 2. 13 “Count” is defined in s. 2 of the Code as a “charge in an information or indictment.” 14 Section 581(1). See th......
-
R. v. K.D.H., (2012) 546 A.R. 248 (QB)
...161]. R. v. R.P.F. et al. (1996), 149 N.S.R.(2d) 91; 432 A.P.R. 91; 105 C.C.C.(3d) 435 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 168]. R. v. G.R., [2005] 2 S.C.R. 371; 337 N.R. 1; 2005 SCC 45, refd to. [para. R. v. N.Y. (2003), 346 A.R. 146; 320 W.A.C. 146; 2003 ABCA 353, refd to. [para. 170]. R. v. S.K., [1......
-
Seck c. Canada (Procureur général),
...2011 SCC 61, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 654; Canada Trustco Mortgage Co. v. Canada, 2005 SCC 54, [2005] 2 S.C.R. 601; R. v. Cuerrier, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 371, (1998), 162 D.L.R. (4th) 513.CONSIDEREDSamatar v. Canada (Attorney General), 2012 FC 1263, [2014] 2 F.C.R. 43; Canada (Attorney General) v. Canada ......
-
R. v. Larche, 2006 SCC 56
...Columbia Ltd. v. Canada, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 804; R. v. Parisien (1971), 3 C.C.C. (2d) 433; R. v. Pearson, [2001] R.J.Q. 69; R. v. G.R., [2005] 2 S.C.R. 371, 2005 SCC 45; R. v. Edwards (2001), 54 O.R. (3d) 737; R. v. Gourgon (1981), 58 C.C.C. (2d) 193; R. v. Paré, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 618; United St......
-
R v Nicholson, 2018 SKCA 62
...creating it”, “as charged in the count”, or if it is expressly stated to be an included offence in the Criminal Code itself: see R v G.R., 2005 SCC 45 at para 25, [2005] 2 SCR 371. None of these circumstances apply here. 3. Was there a miscarriage of justice because the recordings of the va......
-
The Trial Process
...imposes few restrictions. 21 Section 589 prevents any charge from being joined with murder, though even this rule is 15 R v GR , [2005] 2 SCR 371 at para 2. 16 “Count” is defined in s 2 of the Code as a “charge in an information or indictment.” 17 Section 581(1). 18 See the discussion of R ......
-
Table of cases
...R v Gowdy, 2016 ONCA 989, 135 OR (3d) 371 .................................................. 455 R v GR, [2005] 2 SCR 371, 198 CCC (3d) 161, 2005 SCC 45 ............................ 487 R v Gralewicz, [1980] 2 SCR 493, 54 CCC (2d) 289, [1980] SCJ No 87 ........... 397 R v Grandine, 2017 ONC......
-
Digest: R v Nicholson, 2018 SKCA 62
...2016 SKCA 111, [2016] 12 WWR 635 R v Ferguson, 2006 ABCA 36, 207 CCC (3d) 157 R v Frebold, 2001 BCCA 205, 152 CCC (3d) 449 R v G.R., 2005 SCC 45, [2005] 2 SCR 371, 337 NR 1, 255 DLR (4th) 579, 198 CCC (3d) 161, 30 CR (6th) 201 R v Guimond, [1979] 1 SCR 960 R v Hall, 2010 ONCA 421 at para 21......
-
Digest: R v Wass, 2018 SKQB 348
...Sask R 4 R v Brodie, [1936] SCR 188, 65 CCC 289 R v Colhoun, 2010 SKCA 140, 362 Sask R 306 R v Eide, 2011 SKCA 81, 375 Sask R 34 R v G.R., 2005 SCC 45, [2005] 2 SCR 371, 337 NR 1, 255 DLR (4th) 579, 198 CCC (3d) 161, 30 CR (6th) 201 R v Kim, 2011 SKCA 74, [2011] 11 WWR 84, 375 Sask R 68, 27......