R. v. Hebert (D.M.), (1996) 197 N.R. 277 (SCC)
Judge | Iacobucci and Major, JJ. |
Court | Supreme Court (Canada) |
Case Date | May 30, 1996 |
Jurisdiction | Canada (Federal) |
Citations | (1996), 197 N.R. 277 (SCC);77 BCAC 1;48 CR (4th) 204;[1996] ACS no 65;126 WAC 1;[1996] SCJ No 65 (QL);1996 CanLII 202 (SCC);[1996] 2 SCR 272;107 CCC (3d) 42;[1996] CarswellBC 1500;135 DLR (4th) 577;197 NR 277 |
R. v. Hebert (D.M.) (1996), 197 N.R. 277 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
....................
Dale Maurice Hebert (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent)
(24840)
Indexed As: R. v. Hebert (D.M.)
Supreme Court of Canada
Sopinka, Cory, McLachlin,
Iacobucci and Major, JJ.
May 30, 1996.
Summary:
The accused was convicted of aggravated assault following a jury trial. The accused appealed against conviction on the ground that the trial judge misdirected the jury respecting self-defence.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal, Finch, J.A., dissenting, in a judgment reported 60 B.C.A.C. 299; 99 W.A.C. 299, dismissed the appeal. The trial judge did err, but the court invoked s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code to dismiss the appeal notwithstanding the errors. The accused ap-pealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial. The trial judge erred in directing the jury. The Court of Appeal erred in invoking s. 686(1)(b)(iii).
Criminal Law - Topic 1420
Assaults - Defence - Self-defence - Sec-tion 34(1) of the Criminal Code provided a defence of self-defence - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "the jury must indeed be satisfied that every element of the defence has been met. That is to say for the defence to be successful the jury must be left with a reasonable doubt as to the existence of all the elements of the defence. Namely, (i) the accused was unlawfully assaulted; (ii) the accused did not provoke the assault; (iii) the force used by the accused was not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm; and (iv) the force used by the accused was no more than necessary to enable him to defend himself. The trial judge was correct in stating that the defence would only succeed if a reasonable doubt was raised with respect to all of these elements." - See paragraph 23.
Criminal Law - Topic 4370
Procedure - Jury charge - Directions regarding self-defence - The accused pleaded self-defence - The trial judge instructed the jury on ss. 26, 27, 34(1), 34(2) and 37(1) of the Criminal Code - Only s. 34(1) applied - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that the trial judge's instructions must have hopelessly confused the jury and may have diverted the jury from the real issue (i.e., self-defence under s. 34(1)) - The trial judge should not have instructed the jury on s. 34(2) and further compounded the error, in responding to a jury question respecting "excessive force", by failing to advise them that "excessive force" was not a consideration under s. 34(2)(i.e., only s. 26 used that phrase) - The court held that the Court of Appeal erred in invoking s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code to dismiss the appeal notwithstanding the errors - The court directed a new trial.
Criminal Law - Topic 5045
Appeals - Indictable offences - Dismissal of appeal if no prejudice, substantial wrong or miscarriage results - Substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice - What constitutes - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4370 ].
Cases Noticed:
R. v. Colpitts, [1965] S.C.R. 739, refd to. [para. 7].
R. v. F.F.B., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 697; 148 N.R. 161; 120 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 322 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 7].
R. v. P.L.S., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 909; 122 N.R. 321; 90 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 234; 280 A.P.R. 234; 64 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 5 C.R.(4th) 351, refd to. [para. 7].
R. v. Pétel (C.), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 3; 162 N.R. 137; 59 Q.A.C. 81; 87 C.C.C.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 15].
R. v. Ward (1978), 4 C.R.(3d) 190 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].
R. v. Mulder (1978), 40 C.C.C.(2d) 1 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].
R. v. Baxter (1975), 27 C.C.C.(2d) 96 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].
R. v. D.W., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742; 122 N.R. 277; 46 O.A.C. 352, refd to. [para. 20].
R. v. Naglik, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 122; 157 N.R. 161; 65 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 20].
R. v. Kandola (J.S.) (1993), 27 B.C.A.C. 226; 45 W.A.C. 226; 80 C.C.C.(3d) 481 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].
Statutes Noticed:
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 26, sect. 27, sect. 34, sect. 37(1) [para. 2].
Counsel:
Joseph J. Blazina, for the appellant;
Robert A. Mulligan, for the respondent.
Solicitors of Record:
McCullough Blazina Parsons & Prkacin, Victoria, B.C., for the appellant;
Robert A. Mulligan, Victoria, B.C., for the respondent.
This appeal was heard on April 25, 1996, before Sopinka, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.
On May 30, 1996, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official languages by Cory, J.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
R. v. Carriere (D.M.), (2013) 573 A.R. 250 (QB)
...1303; 119 N.R. 161; 69 Man.R.(2d) 161, refd to. [para. 86]. R. v. Latour, [1951] S.C.R. 19, refd to. [para. 86]. R. v. Hebert (D.M.), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 272; 197 N.R. 277; 77 B.C.A.C. 1; 126 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. R. v. White (R.J.) (2004), 202 B.C.A.C. 289; 331 W.A.C. 289; 188 C.C.C.(3d) 3......
-
R. v. Barton, 2019 SCC 33
...R. v. Parks (1993), 84 C.C.C. (3d) 353; R. v. Spence, 2005 SCC 71, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 458; R. v. White, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 72; R. v. Hebert, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 272; R. v. Jaw, 2009 SCC 42, [2009] 3 S.C.R. 26; R. v. Mian, 2014 SCC 54, [2014] 2 S.C.R. 689; R. v. Suter, 2018 SCC 34, [2018] 2 S.C.R. Sta......
-
R. v. Abdullahi, 2023 SCC 19
...Jaw, 2009 SCC 42, [2009] 3 S.C.R. 26; R. v. Starr, 2000 SCC 40, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 144; R. v. Brydon, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 253; R. v. Hebert, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 272; R. v. Lifchus, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320; R. v. Morin, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 345; Boucher v. The Queen, [1955] S.C.R. 16; R. v. Avetysan, 2000 SCC 5......
-
R. v. Abbaya (F.E.), 2000 ABPC 202
...98 C.C.C. 258 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 31]. R. v. Picarello (1923), 37 C.C.C. 229 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 31]. R. v. Hebert (D.M.), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 272; 197 N.R. 277; 77 B.C.A.C. 1; 126 W.A.C. 1; 107 C.C.C.(3d) 42, refd to. [para. R. v. Chisam (1963), 47 Cr. App. R. 130 (C.C.A.), refd to......
-
R. v. Carriere (D.M.), (2013) 573 A.R. 250 (QB)
...1303; 119 N.R. 161; 69 Man.R.(2d) 161, refd to. [para. 86]. R. v. Latour, [1951] S.C.R. 19, refd to. [para. 86]. R. v. Hebert (D.M.), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 272; 197 N.R. 277; 77 B.C.A.C. 1; 126 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. R. v. White (R.J.) (2004), 202 B.C.A.C. 289; 331 W.A.C. 289; 188 C.C.C.(3d) 3......
-
R. v. Barton, 2019 SCC 33
...R. v. Parks (1993), 84 C.C.C. (3d) 353; R. v. Spence, 2005 SCC 71, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 458; R. v. White, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 72; R. v. Hebert, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 272; R. v. Jaw, 2009 SCC 42, [2009] 3 S.C.R. 26; R. v. Mian, 2014 SCC 54, [2014] 2 S.C.R. 689; R. v. Suter, 2018 SCC 34, [2018] 2 S.C.R. Sta......
-
R. v. Abdullahi, 2023 SCC 19
...Jaw, 2009 SCC 42, [2009] 3 S.C.R. 26; R. v. Starr, 2000 SCC 40, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 144; R. v. Brydon, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 253; R. v. Hebert, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 272; R. v. Lifchus, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320; R. v. Morin, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 345; Boucher v. The Queen, [1955] S.C.R. 16; R. v. Avetysan, 2000 SCC 5......
-
R v Abdullahi,
...Jaw, 2009 SCC 42, [2009] 3 S.C.R. 26; R. v. Starr, 2000 SCC 40, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 144; R. v. Brydon, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 253; R. v. Hebert, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 272; R. v. Lifchus, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320; R. v. Morin, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 345; Boucher v. The Queen, [1955] S.C.R. 16; R. v. Avetysan, 2000 SCC 5......
-
Court Of Appeal Summaries (September 23-27)
...SCC 45, R. v. Puddicombe, 2013 ONCA 506, leave to appeal refused, [2013] S.C.C.A. No 496, R. v. Hamilton, 2011 ONCA 399, R. v. Hebert, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 272, R. v. Calnen, 2019 SCC 6, R. v. Rodgerson, 2015 SCC 38, R. v. R.V., 2018 ONCA 547, rev'd on other grounds, 2019 SCC 41 R. v. Hakimi, 20......
-
Table of cases
...278, 286 R v Heatley, 2015 BCCA 350 .......................................................................... 59, 72 R v Hebert, [1996] 2 SCR 272, 135 DLR (4th) 577, [1996] SCJ No 65 ........... 31, 39 R v Hebrada-Walters, 2013 SKCA 24 ............................................................
-
Licence to Khill: What Appellate Decisions Reveal About Canada's New Self-Defence Law.
...v Billing, supra note 34 at para 16; R v Baxter, supra note 17 at 111. (164.) (1971) 55 Cr App R 223 at 242, [1971] All ER 1077. (165.) [1996] 2 SCR 272 at para 18, 135 DLR (4th) (166.) 2017 ONCA 38 at para 118 (not counted in the pool of forty-seven key appeal cases). (167.) R v Robertson,......
-
Table of cases
...264, 175 APR 379 (CA) ........ 182 R v Hebert, [1990] 2 SCR 151, 77 CR (3d) 145, 57 CCC (3d) 1........................... 44 R v Hebert, [1996] 2 SCR 272, 107 CCC (3d) 42, 48 CR (4th) 204 ........... 385, 433 R v Hecimovic, [2015] 3 SCR 483, 2015 SCC 54, af’g 2014 BCCA 48 .............. 238......
-
Table of Cases
...175 APR 379 (CA) ........ 175 R v Hebert, [1990] 2 SCR 151, 77 CR (3d) 145, 57 CCC (3d) 1 ........................... 43 R v Hebert, [1996] 2 SCR 272, 107 CCC (3d) 42, 48 CR (4th) 204 ............369, 414 R v Hecimovic, [2015] 3 SCR 483, 2015 SCC 54, aff’g 2014 BCCA 48 .............. 226 R ......