R. v. Jobidon, (1991) 49 O.A.C. 83 (SCC)

• Judge: La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, Stevenson and Iacobucci, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: March 28, 1991
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1991), 49 O.A.C. 83 (SCC)

R. v. Jobidon (1991), 49 O.A.C. 83 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Jules Jobidon (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent)

(21238)

Indexed As: R. v. Jobidon

Supreme Court of Canada

La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, Stevenson and Iacobucci, JJ.

September 26, 1991.

Summary:

The accused was charged with manslaugh­ter and acquitted. See (1987), 36 C.C.C.(3d) 340; 59 C.R.(3d) 203. The Crown appealed against the acquittal.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a decision reported in 30 O.A.C. 172; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 176; 67 C.R.(3d) 183, allowed the appeal, set aside the acquittal and entered a verdict of guilty of manslaughter. The Court of Appeal remitted the matter to the trial judge for sentence. The accused appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.

Common Law - Topic 1201

Application - General - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the role of the common law respecting criminal offences in Canada - See paragraphs 45 to 48, 58.

Criminal Law - Topic 1225

Criminal negligence - General - The Supreme Court of Canada compared assault and criminal negligence causing death or bodily harm - See paragraphs 132 to 135.

Criminal Law - Topic 1410

Assaults - General principles - [See Criminal Law - Topic 1225 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 1410

Assaults - General principles - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the historical evolution of the offence of assault - See paragraphs 26 to 34.

Criminal Law - Topic 1422

Assaults - Defences - Consent - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the defence of consent in the context of fist fights is limited by the common law - Public policy has nullified or vitiated the defence of consent in fist fights; the courts are not limited to the four factors vitiating consent referred to in s. 265(3) of the Criminal Code - The court held that con­sent is not a defence between adults to the intentional infliction of serious hurt or nontrivial bodily injury in a fist fight or brawl - See paragraphs 105 to 109; 123 to 130.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Dix (1972), 10 C.C.C.(2d) 324 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

Attorney General's Reference (No. 6 of 1980), [1981] 2 All E.R. 1057, consd. [para. 12].

R. v. Kirzner, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 487; 18 N.R. 400, refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Amato, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 418; 42 N.R. 487, refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. March (1844), 1 Car. & K. 496; 174 E.R. 909, consd. [para. 54].

R. v. Lock (1872), L.R. 2 C.C.R. 10, consd. [para. 54].

Wright's Case (1603), Co. Litt. f. 127, consd. [para. 56].

Matthew v. Ollerton, [1693] Comb. 218; 90 E.R. 438, consd. [para. 56].

Boulter v. Clarke, [1747] Bull. N.P. 16, consd. [para. 56].

R. v. Lewis (1844), 1 Car. & K. 419; 174 E.R. 874, consd. [para. 56].

R. v. Coney (1882), 8 Q.B.D. 534, consd. [para. 73].

R. v. Donovan, [1934] All E.R. 207, consd. [para. 74].

R. v. Buchanan (1898), 1 C.C.C. 442 (Man. C.A.), consd. [para. 78].

Bradley v. Coleman (1925), 28 O.W.N. 261, refd to. [para. 80].

R. v. Cullen (1948), 98 C.C.C. 1 (Ont. C.A.), affd. [1949] S.C.R. 658, refd to. [para. 80].

R. v. MacTavish (1972), 4 N.B.R.(2d) 876; 8 C.C.C.(2d) 206, consd. [para. 81].

R. v. Abraham (1974), 30 C.C.C.(2d) 332; 26 C.R.N.S. 390 (Que. C.A.), consd. [para. 85].

R. v. Setrum (1976), 32 C.C.C.(2d) 109 (Sask. C.A.), consd. [para. 86].

R. v. Crouse (1982), 39 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 103 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 87].

R. v. Squire (1975), 26 C.C.C.(2d) 219, revd. [1977] 2 S.C.R. 13; 10 N.R. 25, refd to. [para. 90].

R. v. Kusyj (1983), 51 A.R. 243, refd to. [para. 91].

R. v. Jerome, [1990] 1 W.W.R. 277 (N.W.T.S.C.), refd to. [para. 91].

R. v. Gur (1986), 71 N.S.R.(2d) 391; 171 A.P.R. 391; 27 C.C.C.(3d) 511, consd. [para. 92].

R. v. McIntosh (1991), 102 N.S.R.(2d) 56; 279 A.P.R. 56; 64 C.C.C.(3d) 294, consd. [para. 93].

R. v. Carriere (1987), 76 A.R. 151; 56 C.R.(3d) 257, consd. [para. 94].

R. v. Bergner (1987), 78 A.R. 331; 36 C.C.C.(3d) 25, consd. [para. 94].

R. v. Loonskin (1990), 103 A.R. 193, consd. [para. 94].

R. v. Cey (1989), 75 Sask.R. 53; 48 C.C.C.(3d) 480, consd. [para. 102].

R. v. Barron (1985), 12 O.A.C. 335; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 544 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 130].

R. v. Lemieux, [1967] S.C.R. 492, refd to. [para. 141].

R. v. Pappajohn, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 120; 32 N.R. 104, refd to. [para. 141].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 8(2), sect. 9 [para. 45]; sect. 8(3) [paras. 45-46, 48-49, 61-62]; sect. 9(a) [para. 145]; sect. 14 [paras. 20, 68-70, 120, 142]; sect. 83(2) [para. 118]; sect. 150.1, sect. 159 [paras. 20, 120]; sect. 220, sect. 221 [para. 132]; sect. 222(4), sect. 222(5) [para. 35]; sect. 222(5)(a), sect. 234 [para. 151]; sect. 265 [paras. 10, 18, 23, 33, 37, 39-40, 44, 51, 63, 65, 67, 89, 100, 104, 107, 125, 143-144]; sect. 265(1)(a) [paras. 18-19, 37, 51, 66-67]; sect. 265(2) [paras. 19, 37, 51, 66-67]; sect. 265(3) [paras. 20, 51-52, 59-60, 64-65]; sect. 265(3)(d) [para. 54]; sect. 265(4) [para. 67]; sect. 267(2) [para. 129]; sect. 286 [para. 120].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 244 [paras. 31-33, 44, 81, 85-86, 91].

Criminal Code, S.C. 1892, c. 29, sect. 258 [paras. 30, 44].

Criminal Code, S.C. 1974-75-76, c. 93, sect. 21 [para. 31].

Offences Against the Person Act, 1861 (U.K.), 24 & 25 Vict., c. 100, generally [para. 27].

Authors and Works Notice d:

Bryant, A.W., The Issue of Consent in the Crime of Sexual Assault (1989), 68 Can. Bar Rev. 94 [para. 37]; p. 99 [para. 38].

Canada Law Reform Commission, Report 31: Recodifying Criminal Law (1987), pp. 10 [para. 41]; 17, 28, 34 [para. 45].

Canada Law Reform Commission, Towards a Codification of Canadian Criminal Law (1976), generally [para. 29].

Canada Law Reform Commission, Work­ing Paper 38: Assault (1984), pp. 1 [para. 27]; 24 [paras. 38, 62].

Clarkson, C.M.V., and H.M. Keating, Criminal Law (2nd Ed. 1990), generally [para. 28]; pp. 283-292 [para. 62].

Colvin, E., Principles of Criminal Law (1986), pp. 16-17 [paras. 45-46].

Fletcher, G., Rethinking Criminal Law (1978), pp. 770-771 [para. 114].

Mewett and Manning, Criminal Law (2nd Ed. 1985), pp. 566 [para. 38]; 567 [para. 61].

Parker, G., The Origins of the Canadian Criminal Code, in D.H. Flaherty, ed., Essays in the History of Canadian Law (1981), vol. 1, p. 263 [para. 29].

Russell on Crime (12th Ed. 1964), vol. 1, p. 678 [paras. 28, 53].

Stephen, Sir James Fitzjames, A General View of the Criminal Law of England (2nd Ed. 1890), pp. 108-109 [para. 27].

Stuart, D., Canadian Criminal Law: A Treatise (2nd Ed. 1987), pp. 469-470 [para. 28]; 469, 472 [para. 141].

Tremeear's Annotated Criminal Code (6th Ed. 1964), generally [para. 86].

Watt, D., The New Offences Against the Person: The Provisions of Bill C-127 (1984), generally [para. 28]; p. 216 [para. 62].

Williams, G., Textbook of Criminal Law (2nd Ed. 1983), pp. 549, 576-578 [para. 62].

Counsel:

Brian Greenspan, for the appellant;

W.J. Blacklock and Jamie Klukach, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Greenspan, Humphrey, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant;

The Ministry of the Attorney General, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard before La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, Stevenson and Iacobucci, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada, on March 28, 1991. The decision of the Supreme Court was delivered on September 26, 1991, when the following opinions were filed in both official lan­guages:

Gonthier, J. (La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Cory and Iacobucci, JJ., concurring) - See paragraphs 1 to 137;

Sopinka, J. (Stevenson, J., concurring) - See paragraphs 138 to 151.