R. v. Hinchey (M.F.) and Hinchey (B.A.), (1996) 205 N.R. 161 (SCC)

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Judge: Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Iacobucci, JJ.
• Date: 12 December 1996
• Citation: (1996), 205 N.R. 161 (SCC)
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)

R. v. Hinchey (M.F.) (1996), 205 N.R. 161 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Morgan Francis Hinchey (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) and The Attorney General of Canada (intervenor)

(24430)

Indexed As: R. v. Hinchey (M.F.) and Hinchey (B.A.)

Supreme Court of Canada

La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka,

Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and

Iacobucci, JJ.

December 12, 1996.

Summary:

The accused Morgan Hinchey and Barbara Hinchey were charged with defrauding Beothuck Crushing and Paving Ltd. (Beo­thuck) of an amount exceeding $1,000 by causing Beothuck to issue payroll cheques to Barbara Hinchey when she did not work for Beothuck, contrary to s. 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code. Morgan Hinchey was also charged that he, being a government employee, accepted from a person having dealings with the government, a commission, reward, advantage or benefit, by himself or through a member of his family, contrary to s. 121(1)(c) of the Code. Barbara Hinchey was also charged with defrauding the Gov­ernment of Canada by tendering a false record of employment representing insurable employment with Beothuck, contrary to s. 380(1)(a) of the Code. The accused were tried together on all three charges before a judge and jury and were convicted on all counts. The accused appealed.

The Newfoundland Court of Appeal, in a judgment reported 123 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 222; 382 A.P.R. 222, held that errors in the trial judge's jury charge resulted in the accused not receiving a fair trial with respect to counts one and three (the fraud charges) and set aside those convictions. The court affirmed the conviction for the charge against Morgan Hinchey under s. 121(1)(c). Morgan Hinchey appealed the decision affirming the conviction under s. 121(1)(c).

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, with direc­tions on the proper interpretation of s. 121(1)(c).

Criminal Law - Topic 34

General principles - Mens rea or intention - Recklessness - The Supreme Court of Canada defined and distinguished the concepts of "recklessness" and "wilful blindness" - See paragraphs 110 to 115.

Criminal Law - Topic 39.4

General principles - Mens rea or intention - Doctrine of wilful blindness - [See Criminal Law - Topic 34 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 410

Offences against the administration of law and justice - Corruption of officials - Acceptance by officials of benefits from persons dealing with government - Section 121(1)(c) of the Criminal Code made it an offence for a government employee to receive from a person having dealings with the government a commission, reward, advantage or benefit of any kind, absent consent from the employee's superior - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 121(1)(c) was aimed at preserving actual and apparent government integrity, ex­cluded trivial benefits (occasional cup of coffee, etc.), and was con­cerned with bene­fits from a person having com­mercial dealings with the gov­ernment at the time, which benefits could have an effect on those dealings - Only those benefits re­sulting in a "material or tangible gain" were criminalized - Section 121(1)(c) did not exclude persons who did not intend to receive benefits because of their position in government - The actus reus provided adequate safeguards to pre­vent an overly broad application of s. 121(1)(c) - The mens rea was the em­ployee's intention to accept a benefit or advantage, with knowl­edge (or wilful blindness) that the giver had government dealings and that the employee's superior had not given consent - It was not necess­ary for the Crown to prove that the employee knew the benefit was received because of his position in government - See paragraphs 40 to 84.

Criminal Law - Topic 4379

Procedure - Charge or directions to jury - Directions re evidence of character or credibility of accused - An accused hus­band and wife were convicted of three counts in an indictment, including fraud charges - At trial the defence called con­siderable evidence attesting to the ac­cused's good character - The trial judge did not refer to the character evidence in his jury charge - The Newfoundland Court of Appeal held that the trial judge should have informed the jury as to the use and value of the character evidence - How­ever, the court concluded that the character evidence had little if any bearing on the ultimate outcome and that the impact of the trial judge's error was negligible - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the failure to refer to the evidence and instruct the jury as to its use adversely affected the fairness of the trial and could not be cured by s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code - See paragraphs 130 to 137.

Criminal Law - Topic 5041

Appeals - Indictable offences - Dismissal of appeal if no prejudice, substantial wrong or miscarriage results - Where jury charge incomplete or in error - An accused gov­ernment employee was charged with ac­cepting from a person having deal­ings with the government, a commission, reward, advantage or benefit, contrary to s. 121(1)(c) of the Criminal Code - The charge was tried jointly with fraud charges against the accused and his wife - Con­victions were entered on all counts - The Newfoundland Court of Appeal held that errors in the jury charge prejudiced the accused's trial on the fraud charges, but that if any of those errors were relevant to the s. 121(1)(c) charge, s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Code would apply because there was no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice with respect to that conviction - The Supreme Court of Canada held that any errors respecting the s. 121(1)(c) charge could also not be cured by s. 686(1)(b)(iii) - See paragraphs 130 to 137.

Words and Phrases

Benefit of any kind - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the meaning of the phrase "benefit of any kind", as found in s. 121(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 - See paragraphs 52 to 57.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Greenwood and Tsinois (1991), 51 O.A.C. 133; 8 C.R.(4th) 235 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 3].

Manulife Bank of Canada v. Conlin et al. (1996), 203 N.R. 81; 94 O.A.C. 161 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 12].

Verdun v. Toronto-Dominion Bank (1996), 203 N.R. 60; 94 O.A.C. 211 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 12].

2747-3174 Québec Inc. v. Régis des permis d'alcool du Québec et autres (1996), 205 N.R. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Cooper, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 860; 14 N.R. 181, refd to. [para. 14].

United States v. Evans (1978), 572 F.2d 455 (5th Cir.), refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Zundel (No. 2), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 731; 140 N.R. 1; 56 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 28].

Knox Contracting Ltd. and Knox v. Canada and Minister of National Revenue et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 338; 110 N.R. 171; 106 N.B.R.(2d) 408; 265 A.P.R. 408, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Zelensky, Eaton (T.) Co. and Canada (Attorney General) et al., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 940; 21 N.R. 372, refd to. [para. 30].

RJR-MacDonald Inc. et Imperial Tobacco Ltd. c. Canada (Procureur général), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 199; 187 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. Lafrenière, [1994] O.J. No. 437 (Prov. Div.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Hau, [1994] B.C.J. No. 677 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Johnston, [1995] O.J. No. 3118 (Prov. Div.), refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Smith (E.D.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1045; 75 N.R. 321; 34 C.C.C.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 34].

Ontario v. Canadian Pacific Ltd., [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1031; 183 N.R. 325; 82 O.A.C. 243, refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Fisher (D.) (1994), 69 O.A.C. 286; 88 C.C.C.(3d) 103 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 42.].

R. v. Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society et al. (No. 2), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 606; 139 N.R. 241; 114 N.S.R.(2d) 91; 313 A.P.R. 91, refd to. [para. 42].

Pezzelato v. Minister of National Revenue (1996), 96 D.T.C. 1285 (T.C.C.), refd to. [para. 55].

Vine Estate v. Minister of National Revenue (1989), 29 F.T.R. 59 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 56].

Hoefele v. R. (1994), 94 D.T.C. 1878 (T.C.C.), refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Dubas (S.P.), [1992] B.C.J. No. 2935 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 65].

R. v. Dubas (S.P.) (1995), 60 B.C.A.C. 202; 90 W.A.C. 202 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 65].

R. v. Martineau, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 633; 112 N.R. 83; 109 A.R. 321; 58 C.C.C.(3d) 353; [1990] 6 W.W.R. 97; 79 C.R.(3d) 129; 76 Alta. L.R.(2d) 1; 50 C.R.R. 110, refd to. [para. 72].

R. v. Ruddock (1978), 25 N.S.R.(2d) 77; 36 A.P.R. 77; 39 C.C.C.(2d) 65 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 73].

R. v. Tanguay (1975), 24 C.C.C.(2d) 77 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 74].

R. v. DeSousa, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 944; 142 N.R. 1; 56 O.A.C. 109, refd to. [para. 78].

R. v. Chase, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 293; 80 N.R. 247; 82 N.B.R.(2d) 229; 208 A.P.R. 229, refd to. [para. 78].

R. v. Lohnes, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 167; 132 N.R. 297; 109 N.S.R.(2d) 145; 297 A.P.R. 145, refd to. [para. 78].

R. v. Cooper, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 860; 14 N.R. 181; 34 C.C.C.(2d) 18, refd to. [para. 97].

R. v. Giguère, Belhumeur, Dionne, Canadian Advertising Agency Ltd. and Publicor Ltd., [1983] 2 S.C.R. 448; 50 N.R. 347; 8 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 97].

R. v. Sinasac (1977), 35 C.C.C.(2d) 81 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 97].

R. v. Sault Ste. Marie (City), [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1299; 21 N.R. 295; 85 D.L.R.(3d) 161, refd to. [para. 103].

Reference Re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266; [1986] 1 W.W.R. 481; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 104].

R. v. Vaillancourt, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 636; 81 N.R. 115; 10 Q.A.C. 161; 68 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 281; 209 A.P.R. 281, refd to. [para. 104].

R. v. Wholesale Travel Group Inc. and Chedore, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 154; 130 N.R. 1; 49 O.A.C. 161; 67 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 8 C.R.(4th) 145, refd to. [para. 106].

R. v. Hundal (S.), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 867; 149 N.R. 189; 22 B.C.A.C. 241; 38 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 106].

R. v. Gosset, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 76; 157 N.R. 195; 57 Q.A.C. 130; 105 D.L.R.(4th) 681, refd to. [para. 106].

R. v. Finlay, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 103; 156 N.R. 374; 113 Sask.R. 241; 52 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 106].

R. v. Théroux (R.), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 5; 151 N.R. 104; 54 Q.A.C. 184; 79 C.C.C.(3d) 449, refd to. [para. 106].

R. v. Sansregret, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 570; 58 N.R. 123; 35 Man.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 110].

R. v. Jorgensen (R.) et al., [1995] 4 S.C.R. 55; 189 N.R. 1; 87 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 113].

R. v. Rouleau (1984), 14 C.C.C.(3d) 14 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 123].

R. v. Logiacco (1984), 2 O.A.C. 177; 11 C.C.C.(3d) 374 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 135].

R. v. Tarrant (1981), 63 C.C.C.(2d) 385 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 136].

R. v. Pouliot, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 456; 150 N.R. 146; 54 Q.A.C. 1, reving. (1992), 47 Q.A.C. 1; 74 C.C.C.(3d) 428 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 137].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 121(1)(a) [para. 20]; sect. 121(1)(c) [paras. 5, 20]; sect. 175(1)(a) [para. 81].

Financial Administration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-11, sect. 80, sect. 81 [para. 13].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canada, Office of the Prime Minister, Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders (1994), generally [para. 13].

Canadian Bar Association, Criminal Recodification Task Force, Principles of Criminal Liability: Proposals for a New General Part of the Criminal Code of Canada (1992), generally [para. 69].

Colvin, Eric, Principles of Criminal Law (2nd Ed. 1991), p. 55 [para. 80].

Côté, Pierre-André, The Interpretation of Legislation in Canada (2nd Ed. 1991), p. 275 [para. 50].

Driedger, Elmer A., The Construction of Statutes (3rd Ed. 1994), p. 79 [para. 58]; p. 223 [para. 50].

Gillis, Peter, Criminal Law (3rd Ed. 1993), pp. 30, 31 [para. 22].

Mewett, Alan W., and Manning, Morris, Criminal Law (3rd Ed. 1994), pp. 16, 17 [para. 26].

Pearson, John C., Annotation to R. v. Greenwood (1992), 8 C.R.(4th) 236, generally [para. 38].

Stuart, Don, Canadian Criminal Law: A Treatise (3rd Ed. 1995), pp. 194 [paras. 79, 107]; 195 [para. 108]; 212 [para. 115]; 542 to 546 [para. 69].

Williams, Glanville, Criminal Law: The General Part (2nd Ed. 1961), pp. 157, 158 [para. 112].

Counsel:

David F. Hurley, for the appellant;

Colin J. Flynn, Q.C., for the respondent;

Robert J. Frater, for the intervenor.

Solicitors of Record:

Hurley Woodland Dodd, St. John's, New­foundland, for the appellant;

Colin J. Flynn, St. John's, Newfoundland, for the respondent;

Robert J. Frater, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervenor.

This appeal was heard on April 26, 1996, before La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Iacobucci, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official lan­guages on December 12, 1996, and the following opinions were filed:

L'Heureux-Dubé, J. (La Forest, Gonthier and McLachlin, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 84;

Cory, J. (Sopinka and Iacobucci, JJ., concurring - see paragraphs 85 to 138.