R. v. Gunn (P.B.), (1997) 193 A.R. 222 (CA)

• Judge: Lieberman, Russell and Picard, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: January 23, 1997
• Citations: (1997), 193 A.R. 222 (CA)

R. v. Gunn (P.B.) (1997), 193 A.R. 222 (CA);

    135 W.A.C. 222

MLB headnote and full text

Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. Peter B. Gunn (respondent)

(Appeal No. 9503-0216-A6)

Indexed As: R. v. Gunn (P.B.)

Alberta Court of Appeal

Lieberman, Russell and

Picard, JJ.A.

January 23, 1997.

Summary:

Gunn was convicted of wilfully obstructing a police officer in the execution of her duty, contrary to s. 129(a) of the Criminal Code. He appealed.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the appeal. The Crown appealed.

The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and affirmed the trial judge's decision and restored the conviction.

Criminal Law - Topic 33

General principles - Mens rea or intention - Crimes of specific intent v. crimes of general or basic intent - The Alberta Court of Appeal discussed the distinction between specific and general intent - See paragraphs 39 to 44.

Criminal Law - Topic 39.2

General principles - Mens rea or intention - Wilfully defined - The Alberta Court of Appeal discussed the meaning of "wilful" obstruction of a peace officer in the exe­cution of his or her duty - See paragraphs 46 to 52.

Criminal Law - Topic 228

General principles - Statutory defences or exceptions - Mistake or ignorance of law - A warrant was issued for the arrest of an accused - His lawyer believed the warrant for arrest was not lawful - He confronted the peace officer when she began to arrest the accused - The lawyer was charged with obstructing the peace officer - The Alberta Court of Appeal stated that the lawyer's mistaken belief that the warrant was not legal was a mistake of law - However, section 19 of the Criminal Code (ignorance of the law is no excuse) applied and the lawyer did not have a defence of mistake of law - See paragraphs 53 to 55.

Criminal Law - Topic 434

Offences against the administration of law and justice - Disobedience and obstruction - Obstruction and resistance of peace officer in execution of his duty - The Alberta Court of Appeal discussed the elements that must be proved for a con­viction for wilfully obstructing a peace officer in the execution of his or her duty, under s. 129(a) of the Criminal Code - See paragraphs 16 to 52.

Criminal Law - Topic 434

Offences against the administration of law and justice - Disobedience and obstruction - Obstruction and resistance of peace officer in execution of his duty - Intention - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that only a general intent was needed for a conviction for wilfully obstructing a peace officer in the execution of his or her duty under s. 129(a) of the Criminal Code - See paragraphs 38 to 52.

Criminal Law - Topic 7603

Summary conviction proceedings - Appeal to a court of appeal - What constitutes a "question of law" - Gunn was charged with wilfully obstructing a police officer in the execution of her duty, contrary to s. 129(a) of the Criminal Code - The trial judge determined that the intent required for conviction under s. 129(a) was general intent - He found that Gunn had the req­uisite intent and convicted Gunn - The appeal court justice determined that speci­fic intent was required, that Gunn did not have specific intent and acquitted Gunn - The Crown sought leave to appeal - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that the type of intent required by s. 129(a) involved a question of law alone and granted leave to appeal - See paragraphs 5 to 15.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Szabo, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 736; 122 N.R. 301, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Ogg-Moss, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 173; 54 N.R. 81; 5 O.A.C. 81; 41 C.R.(3d) 297; 14 C.C.C.(3d) 116; 11 D.L.R.(4th) 549; 6 C.H.R.R. D/2498, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Good, Schmidt and Winnipeg; R. v. Neubert (1983), 44 A.R. 393; 6 C.C.C.(3d) 105 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Morrison (1982), 42 N.B.R.(2d) 271; 110 A.P.R. 271; 70 C.C.C.(2d) 193 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. McClelland (B.L.) (1995), 165 A.R. 332; 89 W.A.C. 332 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Ure (1976), 6 A.R. 193 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Westlie (1971), 2 C.C.C.(2d) 315 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Long, [1970] 1 C.C.C. 313 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Tortolano (1975), 28 C.C.C.(2d) 562 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Noel (A.A.) (1995), 63 B.C.A.C. 191; 104 W.A.C. 191; 101 C.C.C.(3d) 183 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Houle (1985), 66 A.R. 156; 24 C.C.C.(3d) 57 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Terrigno (M.) (1995), 174 A.R. 100; 101 C.C.C.(3d) 346 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. C.B. (1988), 90 A.R. 200 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Kozoway (K.W.) (1993), 142 A.R. 323 (Q.B.), affd. (1994), 157 A.R. 79 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Hartfeil, [1920] 3 W.W.R. 1051 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

Barrett et al. v. Krebs et al. (1995), 174 A.R. 59; 102 W.A.C. 59; 32 Alta. L.R.(3d) 224 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Duhamel, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 555; 57 N.R. 162; 57 A.R. 204, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Gamracy, [1974] S.C.R. 640, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Okanee (1981), 9 Sask.R. 10; 59 C.C.C.(2d) 149 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Richard (1974), 27 C.R.N.S. 337 (Que. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 30].

Coleman v. Johnson (Judge) (1984), 43 C.R.(3d) 231 (Que. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. McDonald (1958), 27 C.R. 321 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Anderson (1983), 49 A.R. 122 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Hartmann (1986), 30 C.C.C.(3d) 286 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Sanderson, [1974] 2 W.W.R. 763 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Peters, [1973] 1 W.W.R. 568 (B.C.S.C.), affd. [1973] 4 W.W.R. 110 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Daviault (H.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 63; 173 N.R. 1; 64 Q.A.C. 81; 118 D.L.R.(4th) 469; 93 C.C.C.(3d) 21; 33 C.R.(4th) 165; 24 C.R.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Bernard, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 833; 90 N.R. 321; 32 O.A.C. 161; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 67 C.R.(3d) 113; 38 C.R.R. 82, refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Goodman (1951), 99 C.C.C. 366 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Edmunson, [1975] W.W.D. 180 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Rousseau, [1982] C.S. 461 (Que. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 46].

Lavin v. Quebec (Attorney General) (1990), 77 C.R.(3d) 251 (Que. Sup. Ct.), revd. (1992), 16 C.R.(4th) 112 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Grandish, [1995] Y.J. No. 63 (Terr. Ct.), refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. Docherty, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 941; 101 N.R. 161; 78 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 315; 244 A.P.R. 315; 51 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 17 M.V.R.(2d) 161; 72 C.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. DeSousa, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 944; 142 N.R. 1; 56 O.A.C. 109; 95 D.L.R.(4th) 595; 76 C.C.C.(3d) 124; 15 C.R.(4th) 66; 11 C.R.R.(2d) 193, refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Guthrie (1982), 39 A.R. 435; 69 C.C.C.(2d) 216 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

Rice v. Connolly, [1966] 2 All E.R. 649 (D.C.), refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Molis, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 356; 33 N.R. 411, refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. Jones and Pamajewon, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 110; 137 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 54].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 129(a) [para. 16]; sect. 524(1) [para. 32].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Alberta Court of Appeal, Practice Note F-6 [para. 5].

Colvin, Eric, Principles of Criminal Law (2nd Ed. 1991), pp. 127, 128 [para. 39].

Mewett, Alan W., and Manning, Morris, Criminal Law (3rd Ed. 1994), p. 413 [para. 39].

Stuart, Don, Canadian Criminal Law (3rd Ed. 1995), pp. 217, 218, 219, 220 [para. 39].

Counsel:

S.R. Creagh, for the respondent/appellant;

A.D. Pringle, Q.C., and S.A. Beaver, for the accused/appellant/respondent.

This appeal was heard before Lieberman, Russell and Picard, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal. On January 23, 1997, Picard, J.A., delivered the following judg­ment for the court.