R. v. Godoy (V.), (1998) 117 O.A.C. 127 (SCC)

• Judge: Major, Bastarache and Binnie, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court of Canada
• Case Date: December 02, 1998
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1998), 117 O.A.C. 127 (SCC);1999 CanLII 709 (SCC);[1998] CarswellOnt 5223;168 DLR (4th) 257;[1999] 1 SCR 311;JE 99-388;[1998] SCJ No 85 (QL);131 CCC (3d) 129;AZ-99111014

R. v. Godoy (V.) (1998), 117 O.A.C. 127 (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: [1999] O.A.C. TBEd. FE.001

Vincent Godoy (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) and the Attorney General of Canada (intervener)

(26078)

Indexed As: R. v. Godoy (V.)

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé,

Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci,

Major, Bastarache and Binnie, JJ.

December 2, 1998.

Summary:

In the early morning hours, four police officers responded to an interrupted 911 telephone call from Godoy's apartment. Police give those calls the second highest priority. Godoy informed them that there was no problem. When Godoy attempted to close the door, the officers forced it open and entered the apartment. Inside, they heard a woman sobbing. They found Godoy's common law wife in the bedroom with considerable swelling above her left eye and on her left elbow. The wife claimed that Godoy had hit her. Godoy was arrested for assault. Godoy resisted arrest and broke one of the officer's little fingers. Godoy was charged with an assault on a police officer with intent to resist arrest. At trial, the wife stated that her injuries were caused by a fall.

The Ontario Provincial Court dismissed the assault charge involving the wife. The court also dismissed the charge of assault of a police officer with intent to resist arrest on the ground that the officers' entry into the apartment was unauthorized and therefore rendered illegal all subsequent actions of the police. The Crown appealed the dismissal of the assault of a police officer with intent to resist arrest.

The Ontario Court (General Division) allowed the appeal. Godoy applied for leave to appeal.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a decision reported 100 O.A.C. 104, granted leave to appeal but dismissed the appeal. Godoy appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 1414.1

Offences against person and reputation - Assaults - Assault with intent to resist arrest - Police responded to an interrupted 911 call - Godoy stated that there was no problem and denied them entry - The police forced their way into the apartment - They heard sobbing and found Godoy's common law wife in the bedroom - She alleged that Godoy had assaulted her - Godoy resisted arrest and broke one of the officer's fingers - Godoy was charged with assaulting the officer with intent to resist arrest - The trial court acquitted Godoy because the officers' entry into the apart­ment was unauthorized - The Crown's appeal was allowed on the ground that the police had a common law right to enter the apartment to investigate "unknown trouble" and to "protect life" - The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed Godoy's appeal and ordered a new trial.

Police - Topic 2209

Duties - General duties - Duty to take preventive actions and investigate - [See Criminal Law - Topic 1414.1 ].

Police - Topic 3073

Powers - Arrest and detention - Arrest without warrant - Of person in a dwelling -[See Criminal Law - Topic 1414.1 ].

Police - Topic 3104

Powers - Investigation - Power to use force - [See Criminal Law - Topic 1414.1 ].

Police - Topic 3108

Powers - Investigation - Power to enter private property - [See Criminal Law - Topic 1414.1 ].

Police - Topic 3146

Powers - Forcible entry - Of premises - [See Criminal Law - Topic 1414.1 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Landry, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 145; 65 N.R. 161; 14 O.A.C. 241; 25 C.C.C.(3d) 1, folld. [para. 7].

R. v. Simpson (R.) (1993), 60 O.A.C. 327; 79 C.C.C.(3d) 482 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Waterfield, [1963] 3 All E.R. 659; [1964] 1 Q.B. 164 (C.C.A.), consd. [para. 7].

R. v. Stenning, [1970] S.C.R. 631; [1970] 3 C.C.C. 145, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Knowlton, [1974] S.C.R. 443; [1973] 4 W.W.R. 659; 21 C.R.N.S. 344; 10 C.C.C.(2d) 377; 33 D.L.R.(3d) 755, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Dedman, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 2; 60 N.R. 34; 11 O.A.C. 241; 20 C.C.C.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Plant (R.S.), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 281; 157 N.R. 321; 145 A.R. 104; 55 W.A.C. 104, consd. [para. 19].

R. v. Edwards (C.), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 128; 192 N.R. 81; 88 O.A.C. 321, consd. [para. 19].

R. v. Feeney (M.), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 13; 212 N.R. 83; 91 B.C.A.C. 1; 148 W.A.C. 1, dist. [para. 24].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 8 [para. 19].

Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P-15, sect. 42(1), sect. 42(2), sect. 42(3) [para. 14].

Counsel:

Christopher D. Hicks and Carol Cahill, for the appellant;

Scott C. Hutchison and Erika Chozik, for the respondent;

Bernard Laprade and Carole Sheppard, for the intervener.

Solicitors of Record:

Hicks Block Adams Derstine, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant;

Scott C. Hutchison, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent;

S. Ronald Fainstein, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervener.

This appeal was heard on December 2, 1998, before Lamer, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache and Binnie, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision of the Court was rendered orally on December 2, 1998, with written reasons delivered by Lamer, C.J.C., on February 4, 1999.