R. v. Libman, (1985) 62 N.R. 161 (SCC)
| Judge | Dickson, C.J.C., McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer, Wilson, Le Dain and La Forest, JJ. |
| Court | Supreme Court (Canada) |
| Case Date | October 10, 1985 |
| Jurisdiction | Canada (Federal) |
| Citations | (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 |
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.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States of America v. Burns and Rafay, (2001) 148 B.C.A.C. 1 (SCC)
...Furman v. Georgia (1972), 408 U.S. 238, refd to. [para. 33]. Gregg v. Georgia (1976), 428 U.S. 153, refd to. [para. 33]. R. v. Libman, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 178; 62 N.R. 161; 12 O.A.C. 33, refd to. [para. Burley, Re (1865), 1 U.C.L.J. 34, refd to. [para. 39]. Federal Republic of Germany v. Rauca ......
-
Sharp v Autorité des marchés financiers,
...Investments Ltd. v. De Savoye, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1077; Beals v. Saldanha, 2003 SCC 72, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 416; Libman v. The Queen, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 178; Hunt v. T&N plc, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 289; Global Securities Corp. v. British Columbia (Securities Commission), 2000 SCC 21, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 494......
-
R. v. Hape (L.R.), (2007) 363 N.R. 1 (SCC)
...to. [para. 49]. Singh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 177; 58 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 49]. R. v. Libman, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 178; 62 N.R. 161; 12 O.A.C. 33, refd to. [paras. 49, 161]. Abbasi v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, [2002] E.W.C.A. C......
-
Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v. Canadian Association of Internet Providers et al., (2004) 322 N.R. 306 (SCC)
...Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 63; 306 N.R. 201; 176 O.A.C. 1; 2003 SCC 40, refd to. [para. 57]. R. v. Libman, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 178; 62 N.R. 161; 12 O.A.C. 33, refd to. [para. Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Canadian Liberty Net et al., [1998] 1 S.C.R. 626; 224 N.R.......
-
R. v. Hape (L.R.), (2007) 363 N.R. 1 (SCC)
...to. [para. 49]. Singh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 177; 58 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 49]. R. v. Libman, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 178; 62 N.R. 161; 12 O.A.C. 33, refd to. [paras. 49, 161]. Abbasi v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, [2002] E.W.C.A. C......
-
R. v. Finta (I.), (1992) 53 O.A.C. 1 (CA)
...37 O.R.(3d) 304; 69 C.C.C.(2d) 204 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1983), 45 N.R. 534 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 110]. R. v. Libman, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 178; 62 N.R. 161; 12 O.A.C. 33; 21 C.C.C.(3d) 206, refd to. [paras. 112, 160, 164, Macleod v. Attorney General for New South Wales, [1891] A.C......
-
R. v. Cook (D.R.), (1998) 230 N.R. 83 (SCC)
...[1971] A.C. 537 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 92]. Chung Chi Cheung v. R., [1939] A.C. 160 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 92]. R. v. Libman, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 178; 62 N.R. 161; 12 O.A.C. 33, refd to. [para. Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Canadian Liberty Net et al., [1998] 1 S.C.R. 626; 224 N.R. 241,......
-
R. v. Finta (I.), (1994) 165 N.R. 1 (SCC)
...R. v. Lyons, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 309; 80 N.R. 161; 82 N.S.R.(2d) 271; 207 A.P.R. 271; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 306]. R. v. Libman, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 178; 62 N.R. 161; 12 O.A.C. 33; 21 C.C.C.(3d) 206, refd to. [para. Chief Military Prosecutor v. Malinki et al. (1985), 2 Palestine Y.B. Inte......
-
Canadian Corruption Of Foreign Public Officials Act: Two Additional Convictions In The Cryptometrics Saga
...can lead to. 1Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act, SC 1998, c 34. The conviction was entered on January 11, 2019. 2R v Libman, [1985] 2 SCR 178; R v Karigar, 2017 ONCA 576, paras. 24, and 29 to 32. 3R v Karigar, paras. 21 and 30. 4Section 5 of the Act. 5R v Karigar, 2013 ONSC 5199. 6......
-
A Canadian Perspective On Global Investigations Around The World
...its territorial jurisdiction to the extent that there is a 'real and substantial link' between the offence and Canada (R v. Libman [1985] 2 SCR 178). Canada exercises nationality-based jurisdiction in respect of certain offences. For example, under the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials......
-
Significant Amendments Proposed To Strengthen Canadas Anti-Corruption Regime
...for jurisdiction requires that a "significant portion of the activities constituting the offence take place in Canada" (R. v. Libman, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 178 (Supreme Court of Canada)). The decision in Libman has also led to objections to jurisdiction based on the principle of international com......
-
Significant Amendments Proposed to Strengthen Canada’s Anti-Corruption Regime
...for jurisdiction requires that a “significant portion of the activities constituting the offence took place in Canada” (R. v. Libman, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 178 (Supreme Court of Canada)). The decision in Libman also opened the door to possible objections to jurisdiction based on the principle of ......
-
Table of Cases
...of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict, Advisory Opinion, [1996] I.C.J. Rep. 66 ...................... 70, 72 Libman v. The Queen, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 178, [1985] S.C.J. No. 56, 21 D.L.R. (4th) 174, 62 N.R. 161, 12 O.A.C. 33 ............................. 342, 353– 54 Libyan American Oil Company ......
-
Conspiracy Class Actions: Evidence on the Motion for Certification
...He reviews the key provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that regulate lawyers’ fees in American class actions. He 16 [1985] 2 S.C.R. 178. 17 (2002), 20 C.P.C. (5th) 351 (Ont. S.C.J.). 18 [2001] WL 761360 (D.D.C.), rev’d 315 F 338 (D.C. Cir. 2003), vacated 542 .3d U.S. 155 (200......
-
Foreword
...He reviews the key provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that regulate lawyers’ fees in American class actions. He 16 [1985] 2 S.C.R. 178. 17 (2002), 20 C.P.C. (5th) 351 (Ont. S.C.J.). 18 [2001] WL 761360 (D.D.C.), rev’d 315 F 338 (D.C. Cir. 2003), vacated 542 .3d U.S. 155 (200......
-
Table of Cases
...46, 80 Lavallee, Rackel & Heintz v Canada (Attorney General), 2002 SCC 61 .................29 Libman v The Queen, [1985] 2 SCR 178 .............................................................209 Lilly v The Queen, [1983] 1 SCR 794 .................................................................