R. v. Guay, (1978) 23 N.R. 451 (SCC)

• Judge: Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Ritchie, Spence, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz, Estey and Pratte, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: October 03, 1978
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1978), 23 N.R. 451 (SCC);42 CCC (2d) 536;89 DLR (3d) 532;[1979] 1 SCR 18;23 NR 451;6 CR (3d) 130;1978 CanLII 148 (SCC)

R. v. Guay (1978), 23 N.R. 451 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Guay

Indexed As: R. v. Guay

Supreme Court of Canada

Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Ritchie, Spence, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz, Estey and Pratte, JJ.

October 3, 1978.

Summary:

This case arose out of three counts of gross indecency against the accused with three different boys. The Quebec Superior Court convicted the accused after admitting the evidence of 2 other boys about similar acts by the accused. The accused appealed.

The Quebec Court of Appeal in a judgment reported [1976] C.A. 67 affirmed the conviction. The accused appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction of the accused. The Supreme Court of Canada held that similar fact evidence was admissible to refute the defence of innocent association raised by the accused and to rebut evidence of good character. See paragraphs 14 to 21 and 40 to 47.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the evidence given on each count was relevant to proof of the other counts. See paragraphs 22 to 24 and 48 to 50.

Criminal Law - Topic 5214

Evidence - Relevance - Similar acts - Where indictment includes several counts - The accused was charged with three counts of gross indecency with three different boys - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the evidence on each count was relevant to the proof of the other counts - See paragraphs 22 to 24 and 48 to 50.

Evidence - Topic 1256

Relevant facts - Similar acts - Evidence of similar acts to prove criminal conduct - The Supreme Court of Canada held that evidence of similar facts by the accused was admissible to refute a defence of innocent association and to rebut evidence of good character - See paragraphs 14 to 21 and 40 to 47.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Campbell (1956), 40 C.R. App. R. 95, refd to. [paras. 6, 32].

Harris v. D.P.P., [1952] A.C. 694; 36 C.R. App. R. 39, appld. [paras. 7, 33].

Leblanc v. The Queen (1975), 8 N.R. 107; [1977] 1 S.C.R. 339, refd to. [paras. 8, 34].

R. v. Forage, [1968] 1 O.R. 658; 3 C.R.N.S. 117, dist. [paras. 10, 36].

R. v. Horsburgh, [1967] S.C.R. 746, refd to. [paras. 13, 39].

R. v. Kilbourne, [1973] A.C. 729, appld. [paras. 17, 43].

R. v. Alward and Mooney (1977), 16 N.R. 127; 18 N.B.R.(2d) 97; 26 A.P.R. 97; [1978] 1 S.C.R. 559, appld. [paras. 20, 46].

R. v. Scarrott, [1978] 1 All E.R. 672, folld. [paras. 23, 49].

R. v. Gauthier (1975), 10 N.R. 373; [1977] 1 S.C.R. 441, dist. [paras. 25, 51].

Counsel:

Claude Fillion and Gerard Beaudry, for the appellant;

Jean Montplaisir, for the respondent.

This case was heard on February 1, 1978, at Ottawa, Ontario, before LASKIN, C.J.C., MARTLAND, RITCHIE, SPENCE, PIGEON, DICKSON, BEETZ, ESTEY and PRATTE, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On October 3, 1978, PIGEON, J., delivered the judgment for the Supreme Court of Canada. See paragraphs 1 to 26 (English language version) and paragraphs 27 to 52 (French language version).