R. v. Libman

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Judge: Dickson, C.J.C., McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer, Wilson, Le Dain and La Forest, JJ.
• Citation: (1985), 62 N.R. 161 (SCC),21 CCC (3d) 206,21 DLR (4th) 174,62 NR 161,1985 CanLII 51 (SCC),1985 CanLII 5 (SCC),[1985] 2 SCR 285,12 OAC 33,[1985] 2 SCR 178
• Date: 10 October 1985

R. v. Libman (1985), 62 N.R. 161 (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. Libman

(No. 18381)

Indexed As: R. v. Libman

Supreme Court of Canada

Dickson, C.J.C., McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer, Wilson, Le Dain and La Forest, JJ.

October 10, 1985.

Summary:

The accused was committed for trial on seven counts of fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit fraud. He was alleged to have operated a telephone sales solicitation room in Toronto to solicit Americans to buy shares in gold mining companies in Costa Rica. The telephone salesmen made material misrepresentations in selling the virtually worthless shares. The accused left the country to receive his share of the proceeds, brought the funds to Toronto and distributed a portion to the sales people.

The accused applied to quash his committal on the ground that Canada lacked jurisdiction to try him, because the offences occurred outside Canada. The Ontario High Court dismissed the application. The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the accused's appeal. The accused appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal on the ground that Canada had jurisdiction to try the accused, where the offences had a real and substantial link with Canada or, in other words, a significant portion of the activities constituting the offences took place in Canada. The court discussed the history of the development of territorial jurisdiction of criminal law in England and Canada and rejected both the gist or gravamen of the offence test and the completion of the offence test for determining jurisdiction.

Criminal Law - Topic 2805

Jurisdiction - Place of offence - Territoriality - The accused was charged with fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud for operating a telephone sales solicitation room in Toronto to solicit Americans to buy materially misrepresented and virtually worthless shares in gold mining companies in Costa Rica - The accused received his share of the proceeds outside Canada, but returned the funds to Canada - The Supreme Court of Canada held that Canada had jurisdiction to try the accused, because the offences had a real and substantial link with Canada or, in other words, a significant portion of the activities constituting the offence took place in Canada.

Criminal Law - Topic 2805

Jurisdiction - Place of offence - Territoriality - History of development of territoriality of criminal law - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the history of the development of territorial jurisdiction of criminal law in England and Canada - The court rejected both the gist or gravamen of the offence test and the completion of the offence test of determining jurisdiction in favour of the real and substantial link test.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Brixton Prison Governor, Ex. parte Rush, [1969] 1 All E.R. 316, disapprvd. [paras. 7, 74].

Chapman, Re, [1970] 5 C.C.C. 46, appld. [paras. 8, 54, 78].

Board of Trade v. Owen, [1957] A.C. 602, consd. [paras. 9, 13, 28].

R. v. Martin, [1956] 2 All E.R. 86, refd to. [para. 11].

Lotus, The (1927), P.C.I.J., Ser. A., refd to. [para. 11].

Treacy v. D.P.P., [1971] A.C. 537, consd. [paras. 13, 25, 36].

D.P.P. v. Doot, [1973] A.C. 807, consd. [paras. 13, 25, 39].

R. v. Keyn (1876), L.R. 2 Ex. D. 63, refd to. [para. 15].

Macleod v. Attorney General, [1891] A.C. 455, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Holmes (1883), 12 Q.B.D. 23, consd. [para. 18].

R. v. Jacobi and Hiller (1882), 46 L.T.R. 595 n, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Nillins (1884), 53 L.J.Q.B.(N.S.), M.C. 157, consd. [para. 19].

R. v. Godfrey, [1923] 1 K.B. 24, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Peters (1886), 16 Q.B.D. 636, consd. [para. 20].

R. v. Ellis, [1899] 1 Q.B. 230, consd. [para. 23].

R. v. Stoddart (1909), 2 Cr. App. R. 217, consd. [para. 24].

R. v. Smith and Higginson (1910), 6 Cr. App. R. 64, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Robert Millar (Contractors) Ltd.; R. v. Millar, [1970] 2 Q.B. 55 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Baxter, [1972] 1 Q.B. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 25, 38].

R. v. Lyle (1924), 18 Cr. App. R. 59, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Cox, [1968] 1 All E.R. 410, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Harden, [1962] 1 All E.R. 286, disapprvd. [paras. 32, 74].

Athanassiadis v. Government of Greece, [1969] 3 All E.R. 293, consd. [para. 33].

Emilio Tirado (1974), 59 Crim. App. R. 80, consd. [para. 33].

R. v. Governor of Pentonville Prison, Ex parte Khubchandani (1980), 71 Cr. App. R. 241 (Div. C.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Wall, [1974] 1 W.L.R. 930 (C.A.), consd. [para. 40].

Secretary of State for Trade v. Markus, [1976] A.C. 35, consd. [para. 41].

Croft v. Dunphy, [1933] A.C. 156, refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Blythe (1895), 1 C.C.C. 263 (B.C.C.A.), consd. [para. 45].

Johnson, Re (1904), 8 C.C.C. 243 (B.C.S.C.), consd. [para. 46].

R. v. Wettman (1894), 1 C.C.C. 287 (Ont. C.P.), refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Walkem (1908), 14 C.C.C. 122 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 46].

In Re Criminal Code Sections Relating to Bigamy (1897), 27 S.C.R. 461, refd to. [para. 46].

United States v. Novick (1960), 128 C.C.C. 319 (Que. S.C.), consd. [para. 47].

R. v. Bachrack (1913), 21 C.C.C. 257 (Ont. C.A.), consd. [para. 48].

Ecrement v. Cusson and Connolly (1919), 33 C.C.C. 135, affd 30 Que. K.B. 55 (C.A.), consd. [para. 49].

Shulman v. R. (1946), 2 C.R. 153 (Que. C.A.), consd. [para. 49].

Brisbois, Re (1962), 133 C.C.C. 188 (Ont. H.C.), consd. [para. 50].

Devlin, Re, [1964] 3 C.C.C. 228 (Ont. C.C.), consd. [para. 50].

Hanes and R., Re (1982), 69 C.C.C.(2d) 420 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Selkirk, [1965] 2 C.C.C. 353, disapprvd. [para. 51].

R. v. Trudel, Ex parte Horbas and Myhaluk, [1969] 3 C.C.C. 95, consd. [para. 52].

R. v. W. McKenzie Securities Ltd. et al., [1966] 4 C.C.C. 29, consd. [para. 53].

R. v. Olan, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1175; 21 N.R. 504, refd to. [para. 61].

Burrows v. Jemino (1726), 2 Str. 733; 93 E.R. 815, refd to. [para. 73].

R. v. Roche (1775), 1 Leach 134; 168 E.R. 169, refd to. [para. 73].

R. v. Azzopardi (1843), 2 Moo. 289; 169 E.R. 115, refd to. [para. 73].

R. v. Aughet (1918), 13 Cr. App. R. 101, refd to. [para. 73].

Bolduc v. Attorney-General of Quebec, [1982] S.C.R. 573; 43 N.R. 185, refd to. [para. 79].

Statutes Noticed:

Crimes Act, S.N.Z. 1961, c. 43, sect. 7 [para. 75].

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 5(2) [para. 43]; sect. 423 [paras. 9, 79].

Authors and Works Noticed:

American Law Institute, Model Penal Code (Proposed Official Draft 1962), s. 1.03 [para. 75].

English Law Commission, Report on the Territorial and Extraterritorial Extent of the Criminal Law (Law Com. 91, 1978) [para. 75].

Hall, Lynden, "Territorial" Jurisdiction and the Criminal Law, [1972] Crim. L. Rev. 276 [paras. 68, 74].

Law Reform Commission of Canada, Report 3, Our Criminal Law (1979) [para. 72].

Law Reform Commission of Canada, Working Paper 37, Extraterritorial Jurisdiction, Pt. III [para. 75].

Williams, Glanville, Venue and the Ambit of Criminal Law (1962), 81 L.Q. Rev. 276, 395 [paras. 27, 70].

Williams, Sharon A., and Castel, J.-G., Canadian Criminal Law, International and Transnational Aspects, p. 71 et seq [paras. 68, 74].

Counsel:

Symon Zucker, for the appellant;

John Pearson, for the respondent.

This case was heard on February 12, 1985, at Ottawa, Ontario, before Dickson, C.J.C., McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer, Wilson, Le Dain and La Forest, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On October 10, 1985, La Forest, J., delivered the following judgment for the Supreme Court of Canada.