R. v. Kienapple, (1974) 1 N.R. 322 (SCC)
Judge | Laskin and Dickson, JJ. |
Court | Supreme Court (Canada) |
Case Date | February 12, 1974 |
Jurisdiction | Canada (Federal) |
Citations | (1974), 1 N.R. 322 (SCC);[1975] 1 SCR 729;44 DLR (3d) 351;1974 CanLII 14 (SCC);26 CR (ns) 1;1 NR 322;[1974] CarswellOnt 8;AZ-75111060;[1974] SCJ No 76 (QL);[1974] ACS no 76;15 CCC (2d) 524;26 CR (NS) 1 |
R. v. Kienapple (1974), 1 N.R. 322 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
R. v. Kienapple
Indexed As: R. v. Kienapple
Supreme Court of Canada
Fauteux, C.J.C., Abbott, Martland,
Judson, Ritchie, Spence, Pigeon,
Laskin and Dickson, JJ.
February 12, 1974.
Summary:
This case arose out of a charge on two counts of sexual offences against a 13 year old girl. Count 1 charged the accused with rape contrary to s. 143 of the Criminal Code and count 2 charged the accused with unlawful carnal knowledge of a female under 14 years of age contrary to s. 146(1) of the Criminal Code. The accused was tried, convicted and sentenced on both counts. On appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal the appeal was dismissed without written or recorded reasons.
On appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada the appeal was allowed and the conviction for unlawful carnal knowledge (count 2) was quashed. The Supreme Court of Canada stated that both count 1 and count 2 arose out of the same wrongful act by the accused and that the principle of res judicata precludes multiple convictions for the same delict, even though the matter is the basis of two separate offences - see paragraph 11.
Fauteux, C.J.C., Abbott, J., Martland, J. and Ritchie, J., dissenting, would have dismissed the appeal because counts 1 and 2 constituted separate offences for which the accused could be separately convicted and sentenced. Ritchie, J., stated that the cases dealing with double punishment are not relevant to the issue of whether the accused could be convicted in respect of two separate offences - see paragraph 46.
Criminal Law - Topic 76
Res judicata - Multiple convictions for the same subject matter precluded - The accused was charged under two counts, count 1 was for rape and count 2 was for sexual intercourse with a girl under 14 - The accused was convicted and sentenced on both counts - The Supreme Court of Canada quashed the conviction and sentence on count 2 because of the principle of res judicata which precludes multiple convictions for the same wrong or delict - See paragraph 11.
Words and Phrases
Offence - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the meaning of the word "offence" in the Criminal Law - See paragraph 8.
Words and Phrases
Nemo debet bis puniri pro uno delicto - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the meaning of the phrase "nemo debet bis puniri pro uno delicto" (no one should be punished twice for the same fault) in the Criminal Law - See paragraph 7.
Words and Phrases
Res judicata - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the meaning of the phrase "res judicata" in the Criminal Law - See paragraphs 10 and 11.
Cases Noticed:
Hudson v. Lee (1589), 4 Co. Rep. 43a, 76 E.R. 989, folld. [para. 7].
Cox and Paton v. The Queen, [1963] S.C.R. 500, folld. [para. 7].
R. v. Miles (1890), 24 Q.B.D. 423, folld. [para. 8].
Rex v. Thomas, [1950] 1 K.B. 26, folld. [para. 8].
Wemyss v. Hopkins (1875), L.R. 10 Q.B. 378, folld. [para. 9].
R. v. Quon, [1948] S.C.R. 508, folld. [para. 9].
Connelly v. Director of Public Prosecutions, [1964] A.C. 1254, folld. [paras. 9, 41].
R. v. Morris (1867), L.R. 1 C.C.R. 90, folld. [para. 13].
Rex v. Lockett, [1914] 2 K.B. 720, folld. [para. 15].
Kelly v. The King (1916), 54 S.C.R. 220, folld. [para. 15].
R. v. Siggins, [1960] O.R. 284, folld. [para. 15].
Connelly v. Director of Public Prosecutions, [1964] A.C. 1354, folld. [para. 16].
Rex v. Kendrick and Smith (1931), 23 Cr. App. R. 1, folld. [para. 16].
R. v. Hodgson (1973), 57 Cr. App. R. 502, folld. [para. 21].
Rex v. Marcus and Richmond, [1931] O.R. 164, folld. [para. 22].
Cox & Paton v. The Queen, [1963] S.C.R. 500, dist. [para. 35].
Belyea v. The King, [1932] S.C.R. 279, folld. [para. 36].
Paradis v. The King, [1934] S.C.R. 167, folld. [para. 36].
McDonald v. The Queen, [1960] S.C.R. 186, folld. [para. 36].
Rex v. Thomas (1949), 33 Cr. App. R. 200, folld. [para. 38].
R. v. Barron, [1914] 2 K.B. 570, folld. [para. 39].
Reg. v. King, [1897] 1 Q.B. 214, folld. [para. 39].
R. v. Quon, [1948] S.C.R. 508, dist. [para. 42].
Reg. v. Siggins, 127 C.C.C. 409, dist. [para. 42].
Wemys v. Hopkins (1875), L.R. 10 Q.B. 378, folld. [para. 43].
Statutes Noticed:
Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 11 [para. 12]; sect. 143, sect. 146(1) [para. 4].
Counsel:
J.D. Morton, Q.C., for the appellant;
D.A. McKenzie, for the respondent.
JUDSON, SPENCE, PIGEON and DICKSON concurred with LASKIN, J. FAUTEUX, C.J.C., ABBOTT and MARTLAND, J., concurred with RITCHIE, J. FAUTEUX, C.J.C., and MARTLAND, J., delivered separate reasons for judgment which are set out below.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Alberta Union of Provincial Employees v. Provincial Health Authorities (Alta.) et al., (2004) 368 A.R. 225 (QB)
...remedial impact by encouraging an end to the strike and a return to work - See paragraphs 81 to 87. Cases Noticed: R. v. Kienapple, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729; 1 N.R. 322 ; 15 C.C.C.(2d) 524 ; 26 C.R.N.S. 1 ; 44 D.L.R.(3d) 351 , refd to. [para. 15]. Carewest v. Canadian Health Care Guild et al......
-
R. v. James (W.A.) et al., 2007 NSCA 19
...R. v. Richardson (V.), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 155; 163 N.R. 76; 144 N.B.R.(2d) 321; 368 A.P.R. 321, refd to. [para. 144]. R. v. Kienapple, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729; 1 N.R. 322, refd to. [para. R. v. Provo, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 3; 97 N.R. 209; 59 Man.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 145]. R. v. Prince, [1986] 2 S.C......
-
R. v. Hinse (R.), (1995) 189 N.R. 321 (SCC)
...1, refd to. [para. 29]. R. v. Elliott, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 393; 18 N.R. 485; 38 C.C.C.(2d) 177, refd to. [para. 29]. R. v. Kienapple, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729; 1 N.R. 322; 26 C.R.N.S. 1; 15 C.C.C.(2d) 524; 44 D.L.R.(3d) 351, refd to. [para. 29]. R. v. Terlecki, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 483; 64 N.R. 233; 65 A......
-
R v Hilbach, 2020 ABCA 332
...res judicata in a criminal law context. It precludes multiple convictions for the same delict or wrongful act. The Queen v. Kienapple, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729, 748 per Laskin, J. (“the term res judicata best expresses the theory of precluding multiple convictions for the same delict, although t......
-
Alberta Union of Provincial Employees v. Provincial Health Authorities (Alta.) et al., (2004) 368 A.R. 225 (QB)
...remedial impact by encouraging an end to the strike and a return to work - See paragraphs 81 to 87. Cases Noticed: R. v. Kienapple, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729; 1 N.R. 322 ; 15 C.C.C.(2d) 524 ; 26 C.R.N.S. 1 ; 44 D.L.R.(3d) 351 , refd to. [para. 15]. Carewest v. Canadian Health Care Guild et al......
-
R. v. James (W.A.) et al., 2007 NSCA 19
...R. v. Richardson (V.), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 155; 163 N.R. 76; 144 N.B.R.(2d) 321; 368 A.P.R. 321, refd to. [para. 144]. R. v. Kienapple, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729; 1 N.R. 322, refd to. [para. R. v. Provo, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 3; 97 N.R. 209; 59 Man.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 145]. R. v. Prince, [1986] 2 S.C......
-
R. v. Hinse (R.), (1995) 189 N.R. 321 (SCC)
...1, refd to. [para. 29]. R. v. Elliott, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 393; 18 N.R. 485; 38 C.C.C.(2d) 177, refd to. [para. 29]. R. v. Kienapple, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729; 1 N.R. 322; 26 C.R.N.S. 1; 15 C.C.C.(2d) 524; 44 D.L.R.(3d) 351, refd to. [para. 29]. R. v. Terlecki, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 483; 64 N.R. 233; 65 A......
-
R v Hilbach, 2020 ABCA 332
...res judicata in a criminal law context. It precludes multiple convictions for the same delict or wrongful act. The Queen v. Kienapple, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729, 748 per Laskin, J. (“the term res judicata best expresses the theory of precluding multiple convictions for the same delict, although t......
-
Court Of Appeal Summaries (February 10 February 14, 2020)
...656, leave to appeal refused, [2011] S.C.C.A. No. 150 R. v. AE, 2020 ONCA 117 Keywords: Criminal Law, Sentencing, R. v. Kienapple, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729, R. v. Hayward (1993), 88 C.C.C. (3d) 193 (Ont. C.A.) R. c. A, 2020 ONCA 118 Keywords: Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure, Self-Represented Li......
-
BLANEY’S APPEALS: ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL SUMMARIES (JANUARY 14 – 18, 2019)
...Factors, Mitigating Factors, Evidence, Similar Facts, Prejudice, Jury Instructions, R v Saliba, 2013 ONCA 661, R v Kienapple, [1975] 1 SCR 729, R v Adjei, 2013 ONCA 512, leave to appeal refused, [2014] SCCA No 72, R v Prince, [1986] 2 SCR 480, R v Shah, 2017 ONCA 872, R v Rayo, 2018 QCCA 82......
-
Court Of Appeal Summaries (May 11 ' 15, 2020)
...Search Warrants, Sentencing, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 8, 24(2), Criminal Code, ss. 161, 487, Kienapple v. R., [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729, R. v. Grant, 2009 SCC 32, [2009] 2 S.C.R. 353, R. v. Mann, 2004 SCC 52, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 59, R. v. Mian, 2014 SCC 54, [2014] 2 S.C.R. 689, R.......
-
Court Of Appeal Summaries (May 25 ' 29, 2020)
...151(a), 153(1)(a), 271, 278, 696(1)(a)(i), R. v. Khan, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 531, R. v. W.(R.), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 122, Kienapple v. The Queen, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729, R. v. Howe (2005), 192 C.C.C. (3d) 480 (Ont. C.A.), R. v. W.H., 2013 SCC 22, R. v. Burke, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 474, R. v. R.P., 2012 SCC 22,......
-
Table of cases
...513 R v Khela, [1995] 4 SCR 201, 102 CCC (3d) 1, [1995] SCJ No 95 ............. 349, 350 R v Kienapple (1974), [1975] 1 SCR 729, 15 CCC (2d) 524, [1974] SCJ No 76 ...... 36 R v Kiene, 2015 ABCA 326, 607 AR 314 ............................................................. 242 R v Kift, 2014 ......
-
Table of cases
...525, 528, 529, 530, 537, 589 R v Khill, 2021 SCC 37 .........373, 374, 377, 380, 382, 386, 389, 394, 395, 412, 436 R v Kienapple (1974), [1975] 1 SCR 729, 15 CCC (2d) 524, 26 CRNS 1 .............. 93 R v King, [1962] SCR 746, 133 CCC 1, 1962 CanLII 16 ................................ 90, 12......
-
Table of Cases
...2010 ONCA 862, aff’d [2012] 3 SCR 555, 2012 SCC 69 ................. 74, 158, 196, 210, 505, 506, 508, 516, 559 R v Kienapple (1974), [1975] 1 SCR 729, 15 CCC (2d) 524, 26 CRNS 1 .............. 89 R v King, [1962] SCR 746, 133 CCC 1, 1962 CanLII 16 ......................................86, ......
-
Substantive Principles of Fundamental Justice
...the court found no violation of these principles. 629 Ibid at para 62. 630 Criminal Code , above note 20, ss 607–10. 631 R v Kienapple , [1975] 1 SCR 729; R v Prince , [1986] 2 SCR 480. 632 R v Mahalingan , 2008 SCC 63. FUNDA MENTAL JUSTICE 272 2) No Punishment Without Law It is probably a ......