R. v. Leblanc

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Judge: Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Judson, Ritchie, Spence, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz and de Grandpré, JJ.
• Citation: (1975), 8 N.R. 107 (SCC),8 NR 107,[1977] 1 SCR 339,1975 CanLII 190 (SCC),[1976] 1 SCR 783,68 DLR (3d) 243,1975 CanLII 144 (SCC),29 CCC (2d) 97
• Date: 26 June 1975

R. v. Leblanc (1975), 8 N.R. 107 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Leblanc

Indexed As: R. v. Leblanc

Supreme Court of Canada

Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Judson, Ritchie, Spence, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz and de Grandpré, JJ.

June 26, 1975.

Summary:

This case arose out of a charge of criminal negligence causing death. The accused while operating a small airplane made a "pass" over the victim to frighten him. The airplane struck and killed the victim. The trial judge admitted evidence of similar acts of the accused consisting of "passes" over persons on the ground and over boats on a lake. A jury convicted the accused. The accused was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for two years.

On appeal to the Quebec Court of Appeal the appeal was dismissed and the conviction of the accused was affirmed.

On appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada the appeal was dismissed and the judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal was affirmed. The Supreme Court of Canada reviewed and approved the trial judge's charge to the jury respecting the admission of the evidence of similar acts. The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the evidence of similar acts was admissible to prove recklessness but not to prove the commission of the offence charged - see paragraph 17.

Laskin, C.J.C., Dickson and Beetz, JJ., dissenting, in the Supreme Court of Canada, would have allowed the appeal, would have set aside the judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal and would have ordered a new trial. Dickson and Beetz, JJ., stated that the trial judge's charge to the jury was defective because the trial judge failed to instruct the jury so as to limit the use of the evidence of similar acts to prove recklessness. In addition, Dickson, J., stated that the Crown should not introduce evidence of similar acts unless it appears that the accused is raising a defence of accident or innocent or lawful purpose - see paragraphs 28 to 30.

Criminal Law - Topic 1227

Criminal negligence causing death - Whether the accused acted with "wanton and reckless disregard" for the victim - The accused while operating a small airplane made a "pass" over the victim to frighten him - The airplane struck and killed the victim - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the conviction of the accused of a charge of criminal negligence of causing death.

Criminal Law - Topic 4356

Charge or directions to a jury - Directions regarding intent - Directions regarding evidence of similar acts - Charge of criminal negligence causing death arising out of a "pass" by an airplane operated by the accused - The trial judge admitted evidence of similar acts of the accused consisting of "passes" over persons on the ground and over boats on a lake - The Supreme Court of Canada reviewed and approved the trial judge's charge to the jury respecting the admission of evidence of similar acts to prove recklessness and not to prove the commission of the offence charged - See paragraph 17.

Criminal Law - Topic 32

General principles - Mens rea - Proof of mens rea - Evidence of similar acts - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that evidence of similar acts is admissible, not to prove commission of the offence charged, but to establish guilty intent - See paragraph 16.

Criminal Law - Topic 34

General principles - Mens rea - Recklessness - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that there are only two states of mind that constitute mens rea, and they are intention and recklessness - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that recklessness was advertent negligence - see paragraph 9.

Cases Noticed:

Baker v. R., [1929] S.C.R. 354, refd to. [para. 7].

Arthurs v. The Queen, [1974] S.C.R. 287, folld. [paras. 8, 27].

O'Grady v. Sparling, [1960] S.C.R. 804, folld. [para. 9].

Peda v. The Queen, [1969] S.C.R. 905, folld. [para. 11].

Makin v. Attorney General for New South Wales, [1894] A.C. 57, folld. [paras. 12, 24].

Thompson v. The King, [1918] A.C. 221, folld. [paras. 13, 26].

Noor Mohamed v. The King, [1949] A.C. 182, folld. [paras. 14, 26].

R. v. Wray, [1971] S.C.R. 272, folld. [para. 15].

R. v. Titchener (1961), 35 C.R. 111, folld. [paras. 18, 35].

R. v. Bond, [1906] 2 K.B. 389, folld. [para. 24].

R. v. Barbour, [1938] S.C.R. 465, folld. [para. 24].

Koufis v. The King, [1941] S.C.R. 481, folld. [para. 24].

R. v. Sims, [1946] K.B. 531, folld. [para. 26].

Harris v. D.P.P., [1952] A.C. 694, folld. [para. 26].

Brunet v. The King (1918), 57 S.C.R. 83, folld. [para. 28].

R. v. Anderson (1935), 64 C.C.C. 205, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Cline (1956), 115 C.C.C. 18, refd to. [para. 28].

Holmes v. The King (1949), 7 C.R. 323, folld. [para. 28].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code of Canada, S.C. 1953-54, c. 51, sect. 191 [para. 5].

Counsel:

Pierre Maltais, for the appellant;

Francois Tremblay, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of Canada at Ottawa, Ontario on February 13 and 14, 1975. Judgment was delivered by the Supreme Court of Canada on June 26, 1975 and the following opinions were filed:

de GRANDPRE, J. - see paragraphs 1 to 20.

DICKSON, J. - dissenting, see paragraphs 21 to 39.

BEETZ, J. - dissenting, see paragraphs 40 to 42.

MARTLAND, JUDSON, RITCHIE, SPENCE and PIGEON, JJ., concurred with de GRANDPRE, J.

LASKIN, C.J.C., concurred with DICKSON, J.