R. v. Haas (C.J.), (2016) 326 Man.R.(2d) 302 (CA)

• Judge: Steel, Hamilton and Pfuetzner, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
• Case Date: November 30, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (2016), 326 Man.R.(2d) 302 (CA);2016 MBCA 42

R. v. Haas (C.J.) (2016), 326 Man.R.(2d) 302 (CA);

      664 W.A.C. 302

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2016] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. MY.007

Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) v. Curtis James Haas (accused/appellant)

(AR 15-30-08354; 2016 MBCA 42)

Indexed As: R. v. Haas (C.J.)

Manitoba Court of Appeal

Steel, Hamilton and Pfuetzner, JJ.A.

April 28, 2016.

Summary:

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at 305 Man.R.(2d) 67, found the accused guilty of unlawful act manslaughter arising from the morphine overdose of a young woman (W.H.) who was staying with the accused in his apartment. The unlawful act was trafficking morphine contrary to s. 5(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The court also found the accused guilty of criminal negligence causing death and two counts of trafficking morphine, one for trafficking to W.H. and the other for trafficking to A.M. Relying on the Kienapple principle, the court stayed the criminal negligence causing death conviction and the conviction for trafficking morphine to W.H. The accused was sentenced to three years for manslaughter, and one year concurrent for trafficking morphine to A.M. The accused appealed his conviction for unlawful act manslaughter. The key issue was whether the trial judge erred in concluding that the Crown had proved the element of causation beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused acknowledged that he gave W.H. morphine pills, but he asserted that the chain of causation was broken because she took the pills herself. He also asserted that the conviction was unreasonable, because the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors with respect to how many morphine pills W.H. ingested and when. The criminal negligence causing death conviction became an issue only if the manslaughter appeal was allowed. The accused sought leave to appeal his sentence of three years in the event that the manslaughter conviction was overturned, but the criminal negligence causing death conviction was sustained.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal of the manslaughter conviction. Therefore, the court did not need to address the criminal negligence causing death conviction or the accused's application for leave to appeal sentence.

Criminal Law - Topic 1312

Offences against person and reputation - Manslaughter - Causation - The accused was convicted of unlawful act manslaughter arising from the morphine overdose of a young woman (W.H.) who was staying with the accused in his apartment - The unlawful act was trafficking morphine - The accused appealed the manslaughter conviction - The key issue was whether the trial judge erred in concluding that the Crown had proved causation beyond a reasonable doubt - The accused acknowledged that he gave W.H. morphine pills, but he asserted that the chain of causation was broken because she took the pills herself - The accused argued that the trial judge was wrong not to follow the reasoning of the House of Lords in Kennedy that the voluntary consumption of drugs supplied by an accused person would sever the chain of causation - The Manitoba Court of Appeal stated that "Kennedy is not consistent with the development of Canadian jurisprudence. The key issue in determining whether the unlawful act in question is objectively dangerous is the risk of harm, and not, as concluded in Kennedy, whether the actual harm flowed immediately from the unlawful act. The Supreme Court of Canada has directed that the determination of causation is to focus on the accused person's moral responsibility, as opposed to the autonomy of the victim and the victim's choices, as in Kennedy. Furthermore, the House of Lord's rejection of the reasonable foreseeability approach is contrary to Maybin, which accepted the use of such an approach as an analytical aid when determining whether or not an intervening act has severed the chain of causation" - See paragraph 61.

Criminal Law - Topic 1312

Offences against person and reputation - Manslaughter - Causation - The accused was convicted by judge alone of unlawful act manslaughter arising from the morphine overdose of a young woman (W.H.) who was staying with the accused in his apartment - The unlawful act was trafficking morphine contrary to s. 5(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act - The accused appealed the manslaughter conviction - The key issue was whether the trial judge erred in concluding that the Crown had proved the element of causation beyond a reasonable doubt - The accused acknowledged that he gave W.H. morphine pills, but he asserted that the chain of causation was broken because she took the pills herself - The Manitoba Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - The trial judge did not err in law in rejecting the accused's argument that the voluntary consumption of morphine pills by W.H. had the legal effect of breaking the chain of causation - See paragraphs 62 to 64.

Criminal Law - Topic 4865

Appeals - Indictable offences - Grounds of appeal - Verdict unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence - The accused was convicted of unlawful act manslaughter arising from the morphine overdose of W.H. - The unlawful act was trafficking morphine - The trial judge also convicted the accused of two counts of trafficking morphine, one for trafficking to W.H. and the other for trafficking to A.M. - The accused appealed the manslaughter conviction - The accused argued that the verdict was unreasonable - He asserted that the trial judge made the following palpable and overriding errors: 1. in finding the dosage of the morphine was stamped on the pills; 2. in finding that the orange morphine pills were 60 mg slow release when the toxicologist (Chung) agreed under cross-examination that they could be another dosage - The Manitoba Court of Appeal dismissed these grounds - A.M.'s evidence was that the pills she received were orange and were stamped with 60 mg - Given that and the evidence of Chung, there was evidence before the trial judge that entitled him to find that the morphine pills were stamped with 60 mg dosage, and that the orange morphine pills were 60 mg slow release - In making those findings, he considered the acknowledgment by Chung in cross-examination that it was possible that the dosage of the pills was something else - Chung's report was dated May 14, 2008 - While her research should have focussed on the time period around the date of death in 2007, she testified that she had never known a manufacturer to change the colour of a drug at a specific dosage and type - Therefore, the court saw no error as asserted by the accused - See paragraphs 65 to 66.

Criminal Law - Topic 4865

Appeals - Indictable offences - Grounds of appeal - Verdict unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence - The accused was convicted of unlawful act manslaughter arising from the morphine overdose of W.H. - The unlawful act was trafficking morphine - The trial judge also convicted the accused of two counts of trafficking morphine, one for trafficking to W.H. and the other for trafficking to A.M. - The accused appealed the manslaughter conviction - The accused asserted that the scenario 1 opinion of Chung (a toxicologist) was unreasonable and should not have been relied upon by the trial judge - As a result, he said that the trial judge erred in finding that W.H. consumed at least 16 morphine pills on Saturday evening and this error rendered the verdict unreasonable - The Manitoba Court of Appeal stated that even if the trial judge erred in relying on Chung's opinion, such an error would not constitute a fatal flaw in the reasoning that underpinned the conviction - The finding that W.H. consumed at least 16 pills on Saturday evening was not essential to the verdict - The trial judge did not convict the accused because he gave W.H. at least 16 morphine pills - Whether the number of pills was the "maybe 10" pills, as stated by the accused, the "at least 16" as found by the trial judge, the four given to each of A.M. and W.H. early Saturday evening, or some other number, the essential finding was that the accused's unlawful act of providing morphine pills to W.H. "contributed substantially to her death"' as a result of a morphine overdose and that the morphine pills given to her by the accused were at least a contributing cause of death outside of the de minimis range - Those findings were unassailable on the facts and the applicable law - See paragraphs 68 to 72.

Counsel:

B.F. Bonney, for the appellant;

N.M. Cutler and C.R. Savage, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on November 30, 2015, before Steel, Hamilton and Pfuetzner, JJ.A., of the Manitoba Court of Appeal. The following judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered by Hamilton, J.A., on April 28, 2016.