R. v. Lifchus (W.), (1997) 216 N.R. 215 (SCC)
Judge | Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ. |
Court | Supreme Court (Canada) |
Case Date | May 29, 1997 |
Jurisdiction | Canada (Federal) |
Citations | (1997), 216 N.R. 215 (SCC);[1997] 3 SCR 320;1997 CanLII 319 (SCC);150 DLR (4th) 733;[1997] 10 WWR 570;118 CCC (3d) 1;9 CR (5th) 1;216 NR 215;[1997] CarswellMan 392;AZ-97111090;JE 97-1809;[1997] SCJ No 77 (QL);118 Man R (2d) 218;149 WAC 218;[1997] ACS no 77 |
R. v. Lifchus (W.) (1997), 216 N.R. 215 (SCC)
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: [1997] N.R. TBEd. SE.004
Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. William Lifchus (respondent)
(File No. 25404)
Indexed As: R. v. Lifchus (W.)
Supreme Court of Canada
Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest,
L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier,
Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and
Major, JJ.
September 18, 1997.
Summary:
The accused was convicted of one count of fraud. He appealed, asserting that the trial judge erroneously charged the jury concerning the Crown's burden of proof.
The Manitoba Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at 110 Man.R.(2d) 199; 118 W.A.C. 199, allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial. The Crown appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order directing a new trial.
Criminal Law - Topic 4351
Procedure - Jury charge - Directions regarding burden of proof and reasonable doubt - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the content of instructions to be given to a jury respecting the Crown's burden of proof and reasonable doubt - The court stated that the jury should be given a definition of reasonable doubt and suggested a form of the correct instructions - See paragraphs 15 to 41.
Criminal Law - Topic 4351
Procedure - Jury charge - Directions regarding burden of proof and reasonable doubt - The accused was charged with fraud - The trial judge, in an otherwise model jury charge, instructed the jury respecting the Crown's burden of proof, stating that reasonable doubt meant nothing more than the "everyday sense" of the words - The jury convicted the accused - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that a new trial was warranted - The jury was misdirected as to the meaning of "reasonable doubt", the most fundamental concept known to criminal law - Accordingly, it could not be said that the jury would inevitably have convicted and the proviso in s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code was not applicable - See paragraphs 45 to 46.
Criminal Law - Topic 4950
Appeals - Indictable offences - New trials - Grounds - Misdirection by trial judge - General - [See second Criminal Law - Topic 4351 ].
Criminal Law - Topic 4960
Appeals - Indictable offences - New trials - Grounds - Error respecting burden of proof - [See second Criminal Law - Topic 4351 ].
Criminal Law - Topic 5041
Appeals - Indictable offences - Dismissal of appeal if no prejudice, substantial wrong or miscarriage results - Where jury charge incomplete or in error - [See second Criminal Law - Topic 4351 ].
Cases Noticed:
R. v. Brydon (J.L.) (1995), 55 B.C.A.C. 6; 90 W.A.C. 6; 95 C.C.C.(3d) 509 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].
Victor v. Nebraska (1994), 127 L.Ed.2d 583 (U.S. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 17].
R. v. Tyhurst (J.S.) (1992), 21 B.C.A.C. 218; 37 W.A.C. 218; 79 C.C.C.(3d) 238 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].
R. v. Jenkins (E.) et al. (1996), 90 O.A.C. 263; 107 C.C.C.(3d) 440 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].
R. v. Hrynyk (1948), 93 C.C.C. 100 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].
R. v. Brydon (J.L.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 253; 188 N.R. 321; 65 B.C.A.C. 81; 106 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 21].
R. v. Girard (1996), 109 C.C.C.(3d) 545 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].
Boucher v. R., [1955] S.C.R. 16, refd to. [para. 26].
R. v. Bergeron (1996), 109 C.C.C.(3d) 571 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].
R. v. Ford (1991), 12 W.C.B.(2d) 576 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].
R. v. D.W., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742; 122 N.R. 277; 46 O.A.C. 352; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 397; 3 C.R.(4th) 302, refd to. [para. 41].
R. v. Hebert (D.M.), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 272; 197 N.R. 277; 77 B.C.A.C. 1; 126 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 49].
Colpitts v. R., [1965] S.C.R. 739, refd to. [para. 49].
Statutes Noticed:
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 686(1)(b)(iii) [para. 45].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Wigmore, John Henry, Evidence in Trials at Common Law (Chadbourne Rev. 1981), vol. 9, § 2497, pp. 412 to 415 [para. 16].
Williams, Glanville, Criminal Law: The General Part (2nd Ed. 1961), p. 873 [para. 16].
Williams, Glanville, Textbook of Criminal Law (2nd Ed. 1983), p. 43 [para. 16].
Counsel:
Gregg Lawlor, for the appellant;
Heather Leonoff, Q.C., and Timothy Killeen, for the respondent.
Solicitors of Record:
Manitoba Justice, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the appellant;
Wolch, Pinx, Tapper, Scurfield, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard on May 29, 1997, before Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. On September 18, 1997, the decision of the court was delivered in both official languages and the following opinions were filed:
Cory, J. (Lamer, C.J.C., Sopinka, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 47;
L'Heureux-Dubé, J., concurring (La Forest and Gonthier, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 48 to 50.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
R. v. J.E.D., (2002) 325 A.R. 305 (QB)
...[1988] 2 W.W.R. 385; 62 C.R.(3d) 137; 46 D.L.R.(4th) 466; 23 B.C.L.R.(2d) 145, refd to. [para. 13, footnote 23]. R. v. Lifchus (W.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320; 216 N.R. 215; 118 Man.R.(2d) 218; 149 W.A.C. 218; 118 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 9 C.R.(5th) 1; [1997] 10 W.W.R. 570, affing. [1996] 6 W.W.R. 577; 110......
-
R. v. Villaroman, [2016] 1 SCR 1000
...R. v. Dipnarine, 2014 ABCA 328, 584 A.R. 138; referred to: R. v. Daniels, 2004 NLCA 73, 242 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 290; R. v. Lifchus, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320; R. v. Morrissey (1995), 22 O.R. (3d) 514; R. v. Laboucan, 2010 SCC 12, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 397; R. v. R.E.M., 2008 SCC 51, [2008] 3 S.C.R. 3;......
-
R. v. Epp (C.), 2010 SKPC 89
...R. v. McKenzie (P.N.) (1996), 141 Sask.R. 221; 114 W.A.C. 221; 106 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38]. R. v. Lifchus (W.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320; 216 N.R. 215; 118 Man.R.(2d) 218; 149 W.A.C. 218, refd to. [para. R. v. Dinardo (J.), [2008] 1 S.C.R. 788; 374 N.R. 198; 2008 SCC 24, refd to......
-
R. v. L.L., (2013) 570 A.R. 287 (QB)
...(R.D.), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 144; 258 N.R. 250; 148 Man.R.(2d) 161; 224 W.A.C. 161; 2000 SCC 40, refd to. [para. 97]. R. v. Lifchus (W.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320; 216 N.R. 215; 118 Man.R.(2d) 218; 149 W.A.C. 218; 150 D.L.R.(4th) 733, refd to. [para. Jason R. Russell (Alberta Department of Justice, C......
-
R. v. J.E.D., (2002) 325 A.R. 305 (QB)
...[1988] 2 W.W.R. 385; 62 C.R.(3d) 137; 46 D.L.R.(4th) 466; 23 B.C.L.R.(2d) 145, refd to. [para. 13, footnote 23]. R. v. Lifchus (W.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320; 216 N.R. 215; 118 Man.R.(2d) 218; 149 W.A.C. 218; 118 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 9 C.R.(5th) 1; [1997] 10 W.W.R. 570, affing. [1996] 6 W.W.R. 577; 110......
-
R. v. Lavoie (E.K.),
...refd to. [para. 83]. R. v. Morrissey (R.J.) (1995), 80 O.A.C. 161; 97 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 83]. R. v. Lifchus (W.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320; 216 N.R. 215; 118 Man.R.(2d) 218; 149 W.A.C. 218; 118 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. R. v. Beauchamp (A.) (2000), 262 N.R. 119 (S.C.C.), ......
-
R. v. Epp (C.), 2010 SKPC 89
...R. v. McKenzie (P.N.) (1996), 141 Sask.R. 221; 114 W.A.C. 221; 106 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38]. R. v. Lifchus (W.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320; 216 N.R. 215; 118 Man.R.(2d) 218; 149 W.A.C. 218, refd to. [para. R. v. Dinardo (J.), [2008] 1 S.C.R. 788; 374 N.R. 198; 2008 SCC 24, refd to......
-
R. v. L.L., (2013) 570 A.R. 287 (QB)
...(R.D.), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 144; 258 N.R. 250; 148 Man.R.(2d) 161; 224 W.A.C. 161; 2000 SCC 40, refd to. [para. 97]. R. v. Lifchus (W.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320; 216 N.R. 215; 118 Man.R.(2d) 218; 149 W.A.C. 218; 150 D.L.R.(4th) 733, refd to. [para. Jason R. Russell (Alberta Department of Justice, C......
-
Ontario Court Of Appeal Summaries (September 9 13 2019)
...Offences Act, s 139, Evidence Act, ss 10, 11, Canada Evidence Act, R v W(D), [1991] 1 SCR 742, R v AP, 2013 ONCA 344, R v Lifchus, [1997] 3 SCR 320, R v Mannion, [1986] 2 SCR 272, R v Ul-Rashid, 2014 ONCA 896 R v. Owusu, 2019 ONCA 712 [Pardu, Brown and Trotter JJ.A.] Counsel: Andrew Furgiue......
-
Court Of Appeal Summaries (February 3 February 7, 2020)
...of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 8, 9, R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64 R. v. I., 2020 ONCA 90 Keywords: Criminal Law, Sentencing, R. v. Lifchus, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320 R. v. V.L., 2020 ONCA 87 Keywords: Criminal Law, Sexual Assault, Sentencing, R. v. Lacasse, [2015] 3 S.C.R. 1089 Ontario Review Board De......
-
Ontario Court Of Appeal Summaries (December 17 21, 2018)
...Keywords: Criminal Law, Possession of Narcotics, Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking, Evidence, Burden of Proof, R. v. Lifchus, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320, Watt's Manual of Criminal Jury Instructions, Second Edition R. v. McKenna, 2018 ONCA 1054 Keywords: Criminal Law, Sexual Assault, Eviden......
-
The Criminal Law System
...to try to cast doubt. It is up to the trier of fact 4 R v Clark , 2005 SCC 2. 5 Frey v Fedoruk , [1950] SCR 517, [1950] 3 DLR 513. 6 [1997] 3 SCR 320, 150 DLR (4th) 733. to determine whether the doubts raised do have an air of reality and if those doubts fall within Justice Cory’s deinition......
-
Table of cases
...R v Li, 2020 SCC 12 ...............................................................................................47 R v Lifchus, [1997] 3 SCR 320, 9 CR (5th) 1, 118 CCC (3d) 1 ............................ 58 R v Lights, 2020 ONCA 102 .............................................................
-
Notes
...799. 18 R v Jabarianha , 2001 SCC 75 at para 29, [2001] 3 SCR 430. 19 Francois , above note 16. 20 R v Lifchus , 1997 CanLII 319 (SCC), [1997] 3 SCR 320 at para 29. 21 Gerald TG Seniuk, “Liars, Scoundrels, and the Search for Truth” (2000) 30 Criminal Reports (5th) 244 at 249 [Seniuk]. 22 Gi......
-
The Criminal Law and the Constitution
...on reason and common sense. It is logically derived from the evidence or absence of evidence. 203 Oakes , above note 53 at 333–34. 204 [1997] 3 SCR 320. The Criminal Law and the Constitution 59 Even if you believe the accused is probably guilty or likely guilty, that is not suicient. In tho......