R. v. Knight (J.D.) et al., (2003) 327 A.R. 121 (SCC)
| Judge | McLachlin, C.J.C., Gonthier, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ. |
| Court | Supreme Court (Canada) |
| Case Date | March 20, 2003 |
| Jurisdiction | Canada (Federal) |
| Citations | (2003), 327 A.R. 121 (SCC);2003 SCC 15;10 CR (6th) 11;[2003] CarswellAlta 320;[2003] SCJ No 13 (QL);302 NR 60;327 AR 121;[2003] 1 SCR 156;296 WAC 121 |
R. v. Knight (J.D.) (2003), 327 A.R. 121 (SCC);
296 W.A.C. 121
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
....................
Temp. Cite: [2003] A.R. TBEd. AP.059
Her Majesty the Queen v. James David Knight
Her Majesty the Queen v. Robert Merlin Hay
(29331; 29332; 2003 SCC 15; 2003 CSC 15)
Indexed As: R. v. Knight (J.D.) et al.
Supreme Court of Canada
McLachlin, C.J.C., Gonthier, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ.
March 20, 2003.
Summary:
Knight and Hay were charged with manslaughter, aggravated assault and assault with a weapon.
The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported 288 A.R. 128, convicted the accused. The accused appealed.
The Alberta Court of Appeal, Paperny, J.A., dissenting, in a decision reported 312 A.R. 106; 281 W.A.C. 106, allowed the appeals, quashed the manslaughter convictions and substituted convictions for aggravated assault for Hay and common assault for Knight. The Crown appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment below and restored the convictions and sentences entered by the trial judge.
Criminal Law - Topic 1312
Offences against person and reputation - Manslaughter - Causation - Knight and Hay were charged with, inter alia, manslaughter - The victim (Currie) had been participating in a drinking party on a flatbed rail car with the accused - Currie suffered several assaults, including being pushed off the flatbed onto the hard rock rail yard - An autopsy determined the cause of death to be an acute left-sided subdural hematoma - The accused argued that Currie suffered the subdural hematoma before their assault - The trial judge convicted the accused - The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the accuseds' appeals on the basis that causation was not proved - The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeals and restored the convictions - It was open to the trial judge to conclude that the severe assaults by the accused caused Currie's death.
Counsel:
James A. Bowron, for the appellant;
F. Kirk MacDonald, for the respondent, James David Knight;
Laura K. Stevens, for the respondent, Robert Merlin Hay.
Solicitors of Record:
Not disclosed.
These appeals were heard on March 20, 2003, before McLachlin, C.J.C., Gonthier, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. Arbour, J.A., released the following oral judgment for the court.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R. v. Briscoe (M.E.), (2012) 532 A.R. 48 (QB)
...311]. R. v. Knight (J.D.) et al. (2001), 288 A.R. 128; 2001 ABQB 247, revd. (2002), 312 A.R. 106; 281 W.A.C. 106; 2002 ABCA 191, revd. [2003] 1 S.C.R. 156; 302 N.R. 60; 327 A.R. 121; 296 W.A.C. 121; 2003 SCC 15, refd to. [para. 329]. R. v. G.B. et al. (No. 2), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 30; 111 N.R. 3......
-
Phillip v. Whitecourt General Hospital et al., (2004) 359 A.R. 259 (QB)
...82]. R. v. Thatcher, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 652; 75 N.R. 198; 57 Sask.R. 113, refd to. [para. 124, footnote 83]. R. v. Knight (J.D.) et al., [2003] 1 S.C.R. 156; 302 N.R. 60; 327 A.R. 121; 296 W.A.C. 121; 2003 SCC 15, refd to. [para. 126, footnote Snell v. Farrell, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 311; 110 N.R. 20......
-
Table of cases
...R v Knapczyk, [2016] 1 SCR 78, 2016 SCC 10 ....................................................176 R v Knight, [2003] 1 SCR 156, [2003] SCJ No 13 ...................................... 128, 445 R v Knoblauch, [2000] 2 SCR 780, 149 CCC (3d) 1 .......................................... 568 R ......
-
The Prohibited Act, or Actus Reus
...the 141 Ibid at 88. 142 [2001] 3 SCR 488 [ Nette ]. 143 Ibid at para 71. 144 Ibid at para 6. 145 Ibid at para 81. See also R v Knight , [2003] 1 SCR 156. The Prohibited Act, or Actus Reus 129 older formulation of a cause that is not trivial or insigniicant. 146 They have indicated that “evi......
-
R. v. Briscoe (M.E.), (2012) 532 A.R. 48 (QB)
...311]. R. v. Knight (J.D.) et al. (2001), 288 A.R. 128; 2001 ABQB 247, revd. (2002), 312 A.R. 106; 281 W.A.C. 106; 2002 ABCA 191, revd. [2003] 1 S.C.R. 156; 302 N.R. 60; 327 A.R. 121; 296 W.A.C. 121; 2003 SCC 15, refd to. [para. 329]. R. v. G.B. et al. (No. 2), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 30; 111 N.R. 3......
-
Phillip v. Whitecourt General Hospital et al., (2004) 359 A.R. 259 (QB)
...82]. R. v. Thatcher, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 652; 75 N.R. 198; 57 Sask.R. 113, refd to. [para. 124, footnote 83]. R. v. Knight (J.D.) et al., [2003] 1 S.C.R. 156; 302 N.R. 60; 327 A.R. 121; 296 W.A.C. 121; 2003 SCC 15, refd to. [para. 126, footnote Snell v. Farrell, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 311; 110 N.R. 20......
-
R. v. Dipnarine (B.),
...218; 149 W.A.C. 218, refd to. [para. 25]. R. v. Knight (J.D.) et al. (2002), 312 A.R. 106; 281 W.A.C. 106; 2002 ABCA 191, revd. [2003] 1 S.C.R. 156; 302 N.R. 60; 327 A.R. 121; 296 W.A.C. 121; 2003 SCC 15, refd to. [para. R. v. Eastgaard (H.J.) (2011), 510 A.R. 117; 527 W.A.C. 117; 2011 ABCA......
-
R. v. Powell (G.), [2007] O.T.C. Uned. S63
...estimated that he was in the room for 5 to 10 minutes or less; Second, in her examination in chief she testified that she was leaving at 10:15 or 10:30 pm and in cross-examination she conceded she probably opened the door to leave no later than 9:50 pm; Third, at the preliminary inquiry she......
-
Table of cases
...R v Knapczyk, [2016] 1 SCR 78, 2016 SCC 10 ....................................................176 R v Knight, [2003] 1 SCR 156, [2003] SCJ No 13 ...................................... 128, 445 R v Knoblauch, [2000] 2 SCR 780, 149 CCC (3d) 1 .......................................... 568 R ......
-
Table of Cases
...112 R v Knapczyk, [2016] 1 SCR 78, 2016 SCC 10 ................................................... 169 R v Knight [2003] 1 SCR 156, [2003] SCJ No 13 ....................................... 123, 426 R v Knoblauch, [2000] 2 SCR 780, 149 CCC (3d) 1 ...........................................54......
-
The Prohibited Act, or Actus Reus
...the 141 Ibid at 88. 142 [2001] 3 SCR 488 [ Nette ]. 143 Ibid at para 71. 144 Ibid at para 6. 145 Ibid at para 81. See also R v Knight , [2003] 1 SCR 156. The Prohibited Act, or Actus Reus 129 older formulation of a cause that is not trivial or insigniicant. 146 They have indicated that “evi......
-
The Special Part: Homicide, Sexual, Property, and Terrorism Offences
...trivial, de minimis , 13 Ibid at 88. 14 Above note 7. 15 Ibid at para 71. 16 Ibid at para 6. 17 Ibid at para 81. See also R v Knight , [2003] 1 SCR 156. C RIMINAL LAW 446 or insigniicant. 18 The Supreme Court in R v Maybin 19 airmed that the test is whether the accused’s acts were a signiic......