R. v. Holmes, (1988) 85 N.R. 21 (SCC)

• Judge: Dickson, C.J.C., McIntyre, Lamer, Le Dain and La Forest, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: May 26, 1988
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1988), 85 N.R. 21 (SCC);65 OR (2d) 639;1988 CanLII 84 (SCC);34 CRR 193;27 OAC 321;4 WCB (2d) 218;64 CR (3d) 97;41 CCC (3d) 497;[1988] CarswellOnt 64;[1988] 1 SCR 914;[1988] SCJ No 39 (QL);85 NR 21;50 DLR (4th) 680

R. v. Holmes (1988), 85 N.R. 21 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Murray Ross Holmes (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) and Attorney General of Canada, Attorney General of Quebec and Attorney General of Saskatchewan (intervenors)

(17643)

Indexed As: R. v. Holmes

Supreme Court of Canada

Dickson, C.J.C., McIntyre, Lamer, Le Dain and La Forest, JJ.

May 26, 1988.

Summary:

An accused was charged with possession of housebreaking instruments contrary to s. 309(1) of the Criminal Code. Before plea, the accused applied to quash the indictment on the ground that s. 309(1) violated the accused's right to be presumed innocent under s. 11(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Ontario County Court, in a judgment reported 38 O.R.(2d) 290, allowed the application and quashed the indictment. The Crown appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a judgment reported 41 O.R.(2d) 250, allowed the appeal and ordered that the indictment be prosecuted. The court held that s. 309(1) was not a reverse onus clause and was therefore not contrary to s. 11(d). The accused appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada and the constitutional questions to be determined were stated as follows: "1. Is s. 309(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada inconsistent with s. 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? "2. If so, is s. 309(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada justified on the basis of s. 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?" The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal and directed that the accused be prosecuted under s. 309(1).

McIntyre, J. (Le Dain and La Forest, JJ., concurring), held that s. 309(1) did not create a reverse onus and did not violate s. 11(d) of the Charter.

Dickson, C.J.C. (Lamer, J., concurring), held that s. 309(1) was contrary to s. 11(d) to the extent that the words "the proof of which lies upon him" placed a persuasive burden on the accused to establish "lawful excuse" on a balance of probabilities and that s. 309(1) was not a reasonable limit prescribed by law under s. 1 of the Charter. Dickson, C.J.C., directed a prosecution under s. 309(1) without the accused bearing the persuasive burden of establishing lawful excuse.

Civil Rights - Topic 4945

Presumption of innocence - Evidence and proof - Reverse onus provisions - Section 309(1) of the Criminal Code provided that everyone who "without lawful excuse, the proof of which lies upon him", possesses housebreaking instruments under circumstances giving rise to a reasonable inference that the instrument has been or was intended to be so used is guilty of an offence - An accused claimed s. 309(1) created a reverse onus that violated his right to be presumed innocent under s. 11(d) of the Charter of Rights - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 309(1) was not a reverse onus clause and did not violate s. 11(d) - The inclusion of "reasonable inference" in s. 309(1) meant an inference which, on the basis of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, would warrant a conclusion of guilt in the absence of any answer or explanation - The accused was not required to disprove guilt, the offence was complete where the Crown proved the stated elements in s. 309(1) - The words "the proof of which lies upon him" were superfluous and little more than a recognition of the accused's statutory rights under s. 77(3) of the Criminal Code to make full answer and defence.

Criminal Law - Topic 1789

Offences against property - Possession of housebreaking instruments - Evidence and proof - Section 309(1) of the Criminal Code provided that everyone who "without lawful excuse, the proof of which lies upon him", possesses house-breaking instruments under circumstances giving rise to a reasonable inference that the instrument has been or was intended to be so used was guilty of an offence - An accused claimed s. 309(1) created a reverse onus that violated his right to be presumed innocent under s. 11(d) of the Charter of Rights - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 309(1) was not a reverse onus clause and did not violate s. 11(d).

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Kozak and Moore (1975), 20 C.C.C.(2d) 175 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335; 24 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 50 C.R.(3d) 1; 26 D.L.R.(4th) 200, dist. [para. 4].

Brownridge v. The Queen, [1972] S.C.R. 926, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Santeramo (1976), 32 C.C.C.(2d) 35 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Bergstrom, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 539; 36 N.R. 451, refd to. [para. 7].

Tupper v. The Queen, [1967] S.C.R. 589, refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Smith (1957), 27 C.R. 359 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Haire (1958), 29 C.R. 233 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. McRae (1967), 50 C.R. 325 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Gilson, [1965] 2 O.R. 505 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Singleton (1956), 115 C.C.C. 391 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Jones (1960), 128 C.C.C. 230 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Appleby, [1972] S.C.R. 303, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Patterson (1961), 46 Cr. App. R. 106, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Taraschuk, [1977] 1 S.C.R. 385; 5 N.R. 507, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Cooper, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 860; 14 N.R. 181, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Proudlock, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 525; 24 N.R. 199, refd to. [para. 38].

Latour v. The King, [1951] S.C.R. 19, refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Linney, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 646; 13 N.R. 217, refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Perka, Nelson, Hines and Johnson, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 232; 55 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 321; [1985] 3 W.W.R. 481; 13 C.R.R. 64, refd to. [para. 52].

Reference Re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266, refd to. [para. 53].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1 [para. 13]; sect. 11(d) [paras. 2, 13].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 7(3) [para. 34]; sect. 241(1)(a) [para. 4]; sect. 309(1) [paras. 2, 12, 29]; sect. 577(3) [para. 4].

Criminal Code, S.C. 1953-54, c. 51, sect. 295 [para. 2].

Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. N.-1, sect. 8 [para. 4].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Mewett and Manning, Criminal Law (2nd Ed.), p. 194 [para. 7].

Canada, Statistics Canada, Canadian Crime Statistics 1985, p. 46 [para. 50]; table 2 [para. 50].

Canada, Law Reform Commission Working Paper No. 48, Criminal Intrusion (1986), p. 1 [para. 50].

Counsel:

C. Jane Arnup, for the appellant;

John Pearson, for the respondent;

G.H. McCracken, Q.C., for the Attorney General of Canada;

Paul Monty and Gilles Laporte, for the Attorney General of Quebec;

Robert G. Richard, for the Attorney General of Saskatchewan.

Solicitors of Record:

C. Jane Arnup, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant;

The Attorney General for Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent;

Frank Iacobucci, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervener the Attorney General of Canada;

Paul Monty and Gilles Laporte, Sainte-Foy, Quebec, for the intervener the Attorney General of Quebec;

The Attorney General for Saskatchewan, Regina, Saskatchewan, for the intervener the Attorney General for Saskatchewan.

This appeal was heard on April 2, 1987, before Dickson, C.J.C., McIntyre, Lamer, Le Dain and La Forest, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On May 26, 1988, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official languages and the following opinions were filed:

McIntyre, J. (Le Dain, J., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 8;

La Forest, J. - see paragraph 9;

Dickson, C.J.C. (Lamer, J., concurring) - see paragraphs 10 to 56.