R. v. Krug, (1985) 11 O.A.C. 187 (SCC)

• Judge: Dickson, C.J.C., Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer, Wilson and LaForest, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: March 13, 1985
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1985), 11 O.A.C. 187 (SCC);25 CRR 36;48 CR (3d) 97;[1985] 2 SCR 255;1985 CanLII 2 (SCC);21 DLR (4th) 161;21 CCC (3d) 193;11 OAC 187

R. v. Krug (1985), 11 O.A.C. 187 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

R. v. Krug

Indexed As: R. v. Krug

Supreme Court of Canada

Dickson, C.J.C., Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer, Wilson and LaForest, JJ.

October 10, 1985.

Summary:

Arising out of the same factual situation the accused was charged with the four following offences: 1. attempted theft while armed. 2. use of firearm to commit an offence. 3. possession of a dangerous weapon. 4. pointing a firearm.

The accused pleaded guilty to attempted theft while armed. The trial judge applied the Kienapple principle to the charge of possession of a dangerous weapon and found the accused not guilty of that offence. The trial judge found the accused guilty of use of a firearm to commit an offence and of pointing a firearm and refused to apply the Kienapple principle. The accused appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - see 7 C.C.C.(3d) 337. The accused appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal in part. The court applied the Kienapple principle and found the accused not guilty of pointing a firearm.

Civil Rights - Topic 8547

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (s. 7) - Principles of fundamental justice - In addition to robbery Parliament enacted the offence of use of a firearm while attempting to commit an offence (Criminal Code, s. 83 (1)) - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the enactment of s. 83(1) did not constitute a departure from fundamental justice for purposes of s. 7 of the Charter (see paragraph 29).

Criminal Law - Topic 76

Res judicata (multiple convictions for same subject matter precluded) - General - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the Kienapple principle involves an application of res judicata to criminal law and is not concerned with whether the two offences are the same but whether the accused is being punished twice for substantially the same factual occurrence (see paragraph 13).

Criminal Law - Topic 80

Res judicata (multiple convictions for same subject matter precluded) - Circumstances when defence may be raised - The accused pleaded guilty to a charge of attempted theft while armed - The accused was also charged with possession of a dangerous weapon based on the same factual situation - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that the Kienapple principle applied to preclude a conviction of the accused on a charge of possession of a dangerous weapon (see paragraph 18).

Criminal Law - Topic 80

Res judicata (multiple convictions for same subject matter precluded) - Circumstances when defence may be raised - The accused pleaded guilty to a charge of attempted theft while armed - The accused was also charged with pointing a firearm based on the same factual situation - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Kienapple principle applied to preclude a conviction of the accused on a charge of pointing a firearm (see paragraph 38).

Criminal Law - Topic 80

Res judicata (multiple convictions for same subject matter precluded) - Circumstances when defence may be raised - The accused pleaded guilty to a charge of attempted theft while armed - The accused was also charged with the use of a firearm while attempting to commit an offence based on the same factual situation - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that the Kienapple principle did not apply to preclude a conviction of the accused on a charge of use of a firearm while attempting to commit an offence (see paragraph 26).

Cases Noticed:

Kienapple v. The Queen, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729; 1 N.R. 322, refd to. [para. 8].

McGuigan v. The Queen, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 284; 40 N.R. 499, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Quon, [1948] S.C.R. 508, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Langevin (1979), 47 C.C.C. 138, refd to. [para. 21].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 83, sect. 84, sect. 85, sect. 302 [para. 3].

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, sect. 7, sect. 11(h) [para. 15]; sect. 12.

Counsel:

Joseph A. Bisceglia and Orlando M. Rosa, for the appellant;

Damien Frost, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard by Dickson, C.J.C., Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer, Wilson and La Forest, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada at Ottawa, Ontario on March 13, 1985.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered by La Forest, J. - see paragraphs 1 to 39.