R. v. J.E.D., (2002) 325 A.R. 305 (QB)

• Judge: Watson, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: December 06, 2002
• Citations: (2002), 325 A.R. 305 (QB);2002 ABQB 1064

R. v. J.E.D. (2002), 325 A.R. 305 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] A.R. TBEd. JA.119

Her Majesty The Queen v. J.E.D.

(0167-81494-Q1; 2002 ABQB 1064)

Indexed As: R. v. J.E.D.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Watson, J.

December 6, 2002.

Summary:

Dumont, one of a group of five teens, was pushed down a set of stairs by one member of the group (M). M later punched Dumont in the face several times. The group continued on to the school, where Dumont was rendered unconscious by a brutal beating at the hands of the accused and M. The group left and returned two hours later. Dumont remained unconscious and was beaten again. Police arrived. Dumont died more than one week later because of severe brain damage. The accused was charged with murder on the basis that he was a party to the assault that was a significant cause of death (Criminal Code, s. 21(1)). The accused alleged that he was merely an observer and that the significant cause of brain damage was the fall down the stairs, which he had no part of.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench found the accused not guilty of murder, but guilty of the included offence of manslaughter. Causation was established where the court accepted that the assaults in which the accused participated, not the fall down the stairs, were the significant cause of the brain damage. However, the accused was not guilty of murder where it was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused possessed the subjectively held intent to kill Dumont or an intent to cause him bodily harm that he subjectively knew was likely to cause death. The requisite mens rea for manslaughter was established beyond a reasonable doubt.

Criminal Law - Topic 1260.1

Murder - General principles - Causation - [See Criminal Law - Topic 1263 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 1263

Murder - General principles - Intention - Dumont was continually harassed and bullied by other teens in his group - One teen (M) pushed him down stairs - M later punched him in the head several times - When the group arrived at a school, Dumont was viciously beaten into unconsciousness - The accused was an active participant - Dumont was left there - When the group returned two hours later, Dumont was again beaten - Dumont died over a week later as a result of brain damage - The accused was charged with murder - The accused alleged, inter alia, that the actus reus was not established where the brain damage might have resulted from the fall down the stairs, which he had no part of - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the significant cause of death was the two beatings the accused actively participated in - Accordingly, the actus reus (causation) was established - However, the accused was not guilty of murder where it was not established beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had the subjective intent to kill or the subjectively held intent to cause bodily harm that he subjectively knew was likely to cause death - The court found the accused guilty of manslaughter, where, inter alia, the accused was subjectively aware of the risk of death by the brutal beatings and was reckless as to whether death ensued.

Criminal Law - Topic 1311

Manslaughter - Intention - [See Criminal Law - Topic 1263 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5313

Evidence and witnesses - Inferences - Of consciousness of guilt - From falsehoods - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "it is not correct in law to use falsity of evidence at trial as if it were positive evidence of guilt" - See paragraph 512.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Sparrow (1979), 51 C.C.C.(2d) 443; 12 C.R.(3d) 158 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 7, footnote 1].

R. v. Thatcher, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 652; 75 N.R. 198; 57 Sask.R. 113; [1987] 4 W.W.R. 193; 57 C.R.(3d) 97; 32 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 39 D.L.R.(4th) 275, refd to. [para. 7, footnote 2].

R. v. McMaster (R.A.) et al., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 740; 194 N.R. 278; 181 A.R. 199; 116 W.A.C. 199; 105 C.C.C.(3d) 193; [1996] 4 W.W.R. 660; 46 C.R.(4th) 41, refd to. [para. 7, footnote 3].

R. v. Dunlap and Sylvester - see R. v. Dunlop and Sylvester.

R. v. Dunlop and Sylvester, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 881; 27 N.R. 153; 47 C.C.C.(2d) 93; 8 C.R.(3d) 349 (Eng.); 12 C.R.(3d) 339 (Fr.); 99 D.L.R.(3d) 301; [1979] 4 W.W.R. 599, refd to. [para. 7, footnote 4].

R. v. Laurencelle (V.T.) (1999), 129 B.C.A.C. 292; 210 W.A.C. 292; 28 C.R.(5th) 157 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7, footnote 5].

R. v. DaSilva-Spence (J.M.) (1997), 209 A.R. 40; 160 W.A.C. 40 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9, footnote 6].

R. v. Gagliardi (T.) et al., [1999] A.R. Uned. 334 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9, footnote 7].

R. v. Nette (D.M.), [2002] 2 W.W.R. 1; 277 N.R. 301; 158 B.C.A.C. 98; 258 W.A.C. 98; 158 C.C.C.(3d) 486; 46 C.R.(5th) 197; 205 D.L.R.(4th) 613; 16 M.V.R.(4th) 159; 96 B.C.L.R.(3d) 57, refd to. [para. 9, footnote 8].

R. v. Cooper (A.R.) (2002), 312 A.R. 366; 281 W.A.C. 366 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9, footnote 9].

R. v. Miller (T.W.) et al. (1994), 157 A.R. 147; 77 W.A.C. 147 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10, footnote 10].

R. v. Knight (J.D.) et al. (2002), 312 A.R. 106; 281 W.A.C. 106 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10, footnote 11].

R. v. Chichak, [1978] 2 W.W.R. 425; 8 A.R. 144; 38 C.C.C.(2d) 489 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10, footnote 12].

R. v. Duncan (1984), 57 A.R. 362 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10, footnote 13].

R. v. Creighton, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 3; 157 N.R. 1; 65 O.A.C. 321; 83 C.C.C.(3d) 346; 23 C.R.(4th) 189; 105 D.L.R.(4th) 632; 17 C.R.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 11, footnote 14].

R. v. Cooper, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 146; 146 N.R. 367; 103 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 209; 326 A.P.R. 209; 78 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 18 C.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 11, footnote 15].

R. v. Seymour (J.), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 252; 197 N.R. 81; 76 B.C.A.C. 1; 125 W.A.C. 1; 106 C.C.C.(3d) 520; 49 C.R.(4th) 190, refd to. [para. 11, footnote 16].

R. v. Davy (D.) (2000), 137 O.A.C. 53 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 12, footnote 17].

R. v. Rowley (R.) et al. (1999), 127 O.A.C. 35; 140 C.C.C.(3d) 361 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 12, footnote 18].

R. v. Yu (E.J.) (1998), 102 B.C.A.C. 265; 166 W.A.C. 265; 122 C.C.C.(3d) 353 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 12, footnote 19].

R. v. Allen (D.) (2002), 208 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 250; 624 A.P.R. 250 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 12, footnote 20].

R. v. Biniaris (J.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 381; 252 N.R. 204; 134 B.C.A.C. 161; 219 W.A.C. 161; 143 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 32 C.R.(5th) 1; 184 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 12, footnote 21].

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. 12, footnote 22].

R. v. Simpson and Ochs, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 3; 81 N.R. 267; 38 C.C.C.(3d) 481; [1988] 2 W.W.R. 385; 62 C.R.(3d) 137; 46 D.L.R.(4th) 466; 23 B.C.L.R.(2d) 145, refd to. [para. 13, footnote 23].

R. v. Lifchus (W.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320; 216 N.R. 215; 118 Man.R.(2d) 218; 149 W.A.C. 218; 118 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 9 C.R.(5th) 1; [1997] 10 W.W.R. 570, affing. [1996] 6 W.W.R. 577; 110 Man.R.(2d) 199; 118 W.A.C. 199; 107 C.C.C.(3d) 226; 48 C.R.(4th) 256 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15, footnote 26].

R. v. Starr (R.D.), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 144; 258 N.R. 250; 148 Man.R.(2d) 161; 224 W.A.C. 161; 147 C.C.C.(3d) 449; 190 D.L.R.(4th) 591; 36 C.R.(5th) 1; [2000] 11 W.W.R. 1, refd to. [para. 15, footnote 27].

R. v. D.W., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742; 122 N.R. 277; 46 O.A.C. 352; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 397; 3 C.R.(4th) 302, refd to. [para. 15, footnote 28].

R. v. Noël (C.) (2002), 295 N.R. 1 (S.C.C.), reving. (2001), 156 C.C.C.(3d) 17 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 23, footnote 29].

R. v. Deacon, [1947] S.C.R. 53; 89 C.C.C. 1; 3 C.R. 265; [1947] 3 D.L.R. 772, reving. [1947] 1 W.W.R. 545; 87 C.C.C. 271; 3 C.R. 129; 55 Man.R. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 121, footnote 30].

R. v. Mannion, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 272; 69 N.R. 189; 75 A.R. 16; 53 C.R.(3d) 193; [1986] 6 W.W.R. 525; 47 Alta. L.R.(2d) 177; 31 D.L.R.(4th) 712; 28 C.C.C.(3d) 544; 25 C.R.R. 182, refd to. [para. 121, footnote 31].

R. v. C.C.F., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1183; 220 N.R. 362; 104 O.A.C. 321; 120 C.C.C.(3d) 225; 11 C.R.(5th) 209, refd to. [para. 121, footnote 32].

R. v. K.G.B., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 740; 148 N.R. 241; 61 O.A.C. 1; 79 C.C.C.(3d) 257; 19 C.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 217, footnote 33].

R. v. Chambers (No. 2), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1293; 119 N.R. 321; 59 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 80 C.R.(3d) 235; [1990] 6 W.W.R. 554; 49 B.C.L.R.(2d) 299, refd to. [para. 223, footnote 34].

R. v. Smith (N.M.), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 714; 122 N.R. 203; 104 N.S.R.(2d) 233; 283 A.P.R. 233; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 313; 4 C.R.(4th) 125; 3 C.R.R.(2d) 370, refd to. [para. 229, footnote 35].

R. v. Ferris (J.M.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 756; 174 N.R. 158; 162 A.R. 108; 83 W.A.C. 108; 34 C.R.(4th) 26, refd to. [para. 237, footnote 36].

R. v. Leaney and Rawlinson, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 393; 99 N.R. 345; 99 A.R. 291; 50 C.C.C.(3d) 289; [1989] 6 W.W.R. 332; 69 Alta. L.R.(2d) 1; 71 C.R.(3d) 325, refd to. [para. 237, footnote 37].

R. v. MacKenzie, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 212; 146 N.R. 321; 118 N.S.R.(2d) 290; 327 A.P.R. 290; 78 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 18 C.R.(4th) 133; 18 W.C.B.(2d) 348, refd to. [para. 239, footnote 38].

R. v. Harrer (H.M.), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 562; 186 N.R. 329; 64 B.C.A.C. 161; 105 W.A.C. 161; 128 D.L.R.(4th) 98; 101 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 42 C.R.(4th) 269, refd to. [para. 240, footnote 39].

R. v. Bellegarde (W.L.) et al. (2000), 189 Sask.R. 1; 216 W.A.C. 1 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (2000), 266 N.R. 397; 213 Sask.R. 220; 260 W.A.C. 220 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 240, footnote 40].

R. v. Arp (B.), [1998] 3 S.C.R. 339; 232 N.R. 317; 114 B.C.A.C. 1; 186 W.A.C. 1; 166 D.L.R.(4th) 296; 129 C.C.C.(3d) 321; [1999] 5 W.W.R. 545; 20 C.R.(5th) 1, refd to. [para. 240, footnote 41].

R. v. Vu (H.D.) - see R. v. La (H.K.) et al.

R. v. La (H.K.) et al., [1997] 2 S.C.R. 680; 213 N.R. 1; 200 A.R. 81; 146 W.A.C. 81; 116 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 8 C.R.(5th) 155; 148 D.L.R.(4th) 608, refd to. [para. 241, footnote 42].

R. v. Baron and Wertman (1976), 31 C.C.C.(2d) 525; 73 D.L.R.(3d) 213; 14 O.R.(2d) 173 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 243, footnote 44].

R. v. Christie, [1914] A.C. 545; 10 Cr. App. R. 141, refd to. [para. 243, footnote 45].

Stein v. R., [1928] S.C.R. 553; [1929] 1 D.L.R. 143; 50 C.C.C. 311, refd to. [para. 243, footnote 45].

Hubin v. R., [1927] S.C.R. 442; 48 C.C.C. 172; [1927] 4 D.L.R. 760, refd to. [para. 243, footnote 45].

R. v. Clark (W.A.) (1997), 86 B.C.A.C. 72; 142 W.A.C. 72 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 243, footnote 46].

R. v. Govedarov, Popovic and Askov - see R. v. Popovic and Askov.

R. v. Popovic and Askov (1974), 16 C.C.C.(2d) 238; 25 C.R.N.S. 1; 3 O.R.(2d) 23 (C.A.), affd. [1976] 2 S.C.R. 308; 7 N.R. 231; 25 C.C.C.(2d) 161; 32 C.R.N.S. 54; 62 D.L.R.(3d) 56, refd to. [para. 243, footnote 47].

R. v. Hammond, [1970] 2 C.C.C. 140; 9 C.R.N.S. 123; [1970] 1 O.R. 583 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 243, footnote 48].

R. v. Morin, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 345; 88 N.R. 161; 30 O.A.C. 81; 44 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 66 C.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 317, footnote 49].

R. v. Jolivet (D.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 751; 254 N.R. 1; 144 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 33 C.R.(5th) 1; 185 D.L.R.(4th) 626, refd to. [para. 372, footnote 50].

R. v. Vetrovec; R. v. Gaja, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 811; 41 N.R. 606; [1983] 1 W.W.R. 193; 27 C.R.(3d) 304; 136 D.L.R.(3d) 89; 67 C.C.C.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 378, footnote 52].

R. v. Bussey (S.) et al. (1999), 176 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 181; 540 A.P.R. 181 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 378, footnote 53].

R. v. Baltrusaitis (V.C.) (2002), 155 O.A.C. 249; 162 C.C.C.(3d) 539 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 378, footnote 54].

R. v. Clarke, [1981] 6 W.W.R. 417; 32 A.R. 92; 63 C.C.C.(2d) 449; 23 C.R.(3d) 193 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1981), 41 N.R. 445; 34 A.R. 270; 63 C.C.C.(2d) 449 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 379, footnote 55].

R. v. Brooks (F.A.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 237; 250 N.R. 103; 129 O.A.C. 205; 141 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 30 C.R.(5th) 201, refd to. [para. 379, footnote 56].

R. v. Gagnon (Y.R.J.) et al. (2000), 136 O.A.C. 116; 147 C.C.C.(3d) 983 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 385, footnote 57].

R. v. Khan, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 531; 113 N.R. 53; 41 O.A.C. 353; 59 C.C.C.(3d) 92; 79 C.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 400, footnote 59].

R. v. Rockey (S.E.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 829; 204 N.R. 214; 95 O.A.C. 134; 110 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 2 C.R.(5th) 301, refd to. [para. 400, footnote 60].

R. v. Osolin, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 595; 162 N.R. 1; 38 B.C.A.C. 81; 62 W.A.C. 81; 109 D.L.R.(4th) 478; 86 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 26 C.R.(4th) 1; 19 C.R.R.(2d) 93, refd to. [para. 401, footnote 61].

R. v. Marquard (D.), [1993] 4 S.C.R. 223; 159 N.R. 81; 66 O.A.C. 161; 85 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 108 D.L.R.(4th) 47; 25 C.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 401, footnote 62].

R. v. Abbey, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 24; 43 N.R. 30; [1983] 1 W.W.R. 251; 39 B.C.L.R. 201; 29 C.R.(3d) 193; 68 C.C.C.(2d) 394; 138 D.L.R.(3d) 202, refd to. [para. 420, footnote 63].

R. v. Bartle (K.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 173; 172 N.R. 1; 74 O.A.C. 161; 92 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 33 C.R.(4th) 1; 6 M.V.R.(3d) 1; 118 D.L.R.(4th) 83, refd to. [para. 425, footnote 64].

R. v. Bannerman (1965), 48 C.R. 110; 55 W.W.R.(N.S.) 257 (Man. C.A.), affd. [1966] S.C.R. v.; 50 C.R. 76; 57 W.W.R.(N.S.) 736, refd to. [para. 436, footnote 65].

R. v. Allender (B.W.F.), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 333; 214 N.R. 296; 94 B.C.A.C. 161; 152 W.A.C. 161; 117 C.C.C.(3d) 1, affing. (1996), 70 B.C.A.C. 241; 115 W.A.C. 241 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 436, footnote 66].

R. v. Sigmund, Howe, Defend and Durry, [1968] 1 C.C.C. 91; 60 W.W.R.(N.S.) 257 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 436, footnote 66].

R. v. Papkosmas (C.), [1999] H.C.A. 37 (Aus. H.C.), refd to. [para. 436, footnote 67].

R. v. Kusk (D.P.), [1999] 7 W.W.R. 339; 232 A.R. 270; 195 W.A.C. 270; 22 C.R.(5th) 50; 132 C.C.C.(3d) 559 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 446, footnote 68].

R. v. Wojcik (J.W.) (2002), 166 Man.R.(2d) 55; 278 W.A.C. 55; 166 C.C.C.(3d) 418; 3 C.R.(6th) 92 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 446, footnote 69].

R. v. Coutts (S.) et al. (1998), 110 O.A.C. 353; 126 C.C.C.(3d) 545; 16 C.R.(5th) 240; 40 O.R.(3d) 198 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1999), 239 N.R. 193; 123 O.A.C. 199; 131 C.C.C.(3d) vi (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 455, footnote 70].

R. v. Blazeiko (G.) (2000), 133 O.A.C. 123; 145 C.C.C.(3d) 557 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 455, footnote 71].

R. v. Hibbert (K.R.) (2002), 287 N.R. 111; 165 B.C.A.C. 161; 270 W.A.C. 161; 163 C.C.C.(3d) 129; 50 C.R.(5th) 209; 211 D.L.R.(4th) 223 (S.C.C.), reving. (2000), 134 B.C.A.C. 281; 219 W.A.C. 281 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 455, footnote 72].

R. v. Simpson (C.D.) (2002), 174 B.C.A.C. 228; 286 W.A.C. 228 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 455, footnote 73].

R. v. White (R.G.) and Côté (Y.), [1998] 2 S.C.R. 72; 227 N.R. 326; 112 O.A.C. 1; 125 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 16 C.R.(5th) 199, refd to. [para. 508, footnote 74].

R. v. O'Connor (P.) (2002), 166 O.A.C. 202 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 512, footnote 75].

R. v. Evans (B.J.), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 629; 153 N.R. 212; 28 B.C.A.C. 81; 47 W.A.C. 81; 82 C.C.C.(3d) 338; 104 D.L.R.(4th) 200; 21 C.R.(4th) 321, refd to. [para. 519, footnote 76].

R. v. Cheung (Y.W.) (1997), 97 B.C.A.C. 161; 157 W.A.C. 161; 119 C.C.C.(3d) 507 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1998), 227 N.R. 291; 119 B.C.A.C. 320; 194 W.A.C. 320 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 519, footnote 77].

R. v. Cook (D.R.), [1998] 2 S.C.R. 597; 230 N.R. 83; 112 B.C.A.C. 1; 182 W.A.C. 1; 164 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 128 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 19 C.R.(5th) 1; [1999] 5 W.W.R. 582, refd to. [para. 521, footnote 78].

R. v. Smithers, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 506; 15 N.R. 287; 34 C.C.C.(2d) 427; 40 C.R.N.S. 79; 75 D.L.R.(3d) 321, refd to. [para. 539, footnote 80].

R. v. Shanks (W.) (1996), 95 O.A.C. 348 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 539, footnote 82].

R. v. Thackeray (K.P.) (1997), 86 B.C.A.C. 128; 142 W.A.C. 128; 113 C.C.C.(3d) 190 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 539, footnote 83].

R. v. DeCloedt and Widemaier (1986), 40 Man.R.(2d) 126; 28 C.C.C.(3d) 7 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 539, footnote 84].

R. v. Best, [1988] B.C.J. No. 65 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 539, footnote 85].

R. v. Smoker, [1990] A.J. No. 26 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 542, footnote 87].

R. v. Nygaard and Schimmens, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1074; 101 N.R. 108; 102 A.R. 186; 51 C.C.C.(3d) 417; [1990] 1 W.W.R. 1; 70 Alta. L.R.(2d) 1; 72 C.R.(3d) 257, refd to. [para. 546, footnote 88].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Phipson on Evidence (11th Ed. 1970), p. 767 [para. 243, footnote 47].

Counsel:

Susan Hughson (Ministry of Justice of Alberta), for the Crown;

Robert A. Joly, for the accused.

This case was heard on October 11-24, 31, November 8, 14 and December 6, 2002, before Watson, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following verdict on December 6, 2002.