R. v. Logan, Logan and Johnson

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Judge: Dickson, C.J.C., Lamer, C.J.C.*, Wilson, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier and Cory, JJ.
• Citation: (1990), 112 N.R. 144 (SCC),41 OAC 330,50 CRR 152,[1990] 2 SCR 731,[1990] SCJ No 89 (QL),58 CCC (3d) 391,[1990] ACS no 89,73 DLR (4th) 40,74 OR (2d) 644,1990 CanLII 84 (SCC),79 CR (3d) 169,112 NR 144
• Date: 13 September 1990
• Subject Matter: CRIMINAL LAW,CIVIL RIGHTS

R. v. Logan (1990), 112 N.R. 144 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Her Majesty the Queen (appellant) v. Sutcliffe Logan, Jr. and Warren Leroy Johnson (respondents) and Attorney General of Canada (intervenor)

(21382)

Indexed As: R. v. Logan, Logan and Johnson

Supreme Court of Canada

Dickson, C.J.C., Lamer, C.J.C.*, Wilson, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier and Cory, JJ.

September 13, 1990.

Summary:

The accused were convicted of, inter alia, attempted murder as parties under s. 21(2) of the Criminal Code, where they "knew or ought to have known" that the robbery victim would be shot. The accused appealed the attempted murder convictions and others.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a judgment reported 30 O.A.C. 321, allowed the appeals to the extent of substituting robbery convictions for the attempted murder convictions. The court stated that s. 21(2), by permitting a conviction on the basis of objective foreseeability, was contrary to the principles of fundamental justice under s. 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and was not a reasonable limit prescribed by law under s. 1. The court stated that the words "or ought to have known" should be struck from s. 21(2). The Crown appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal. The court stated that the words "or ought to have known", when considering whether a person was a party to an offence where subjective foresight of the consequences was a constitutional requirement, such as attempted murder, were inoperative. The court stated that the objective foreseeability provision of s. 21(2), in relation to a charge of attempted murder, violated the principles of fundamental justice under s. 7 and was not a reasonable limit prescribed by law under s. 1, because it failed the proportionality test.

*(Editor's Note: Dickson, C.J.C., was Chief Justice at the time of hearing; Lamer, C.J.C., was Chief Justice at the time of judgment).

Civil Rights - Topic 3161

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal proceedings - Conviction on basis of objective foreseeability - Section 21(2) of the Criminal Code made parties to unlawful purposes (e.g., robbery) guilty of attempted murder if they "knew or ought to have known" that an attempted murder would result from carrying out the robbery - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "when the principles of fundamental justice require subjective foresight ... to convict a principal of attempted murder, that same minimum degree of mens rea is constitutionally required to convict a party of the principal offence" - The court stated that s. 21(2), by permitting a party to be convicted of attempted murder on the basis of objective foresight, violated the principles of fundamental justice under s. 7 of the Charter and was not saved by s. 1.

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3161].

Civil Rights - Topic 8547

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Principles of fundamental justice - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3161].

Criminal Law - Topic 1256

Attempted murder - General - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3161].

Criminal Law - Topic 2742

Parties - Necessary intention or knowledge - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3161].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Vaillancourt, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 636; 81 N.R. 115; 10 Q.A.C. 161; 60 C.R.(3d) 289, appld. [paras. 7, 37, 43].

R. v. Ancio, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 225; 52 N.R. 161, appld. [paras. 7, 45].

R. v. Martineau (1990), 112 N.R. 83, appld. [paras. 17, 38].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335; 24 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 50 C.R.(3d) 1; 26 D.L.R.(4th) 200, appld. [para. 24].

R. v. Rodney (1990), 112 N.R. 167, refd to. [para. 38].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1, sect. 7.

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 21 [paras. 6, 42]; sect. 222 [para. 44].

Counsel:

W.J. Blacklock and Ken Campbell, for the appellant;

Peter Connelly, for the respondents;

Bruce MacFarlane, Q.C., and Don Avison, for the Attorney General of Canada.

Solicitors of Record:

Ministry of the Attorney General, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant;

Danson & Zucker, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondents;

John C. Tait, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of Canada.

This appeal was heard on March 27, 1990, before Dickson, C.J.C., Lamer, J. (now C.J.C.), Wilson, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier and Cory, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On September 13, 1990, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official languages and the following opinions were filed:

Lamer, C.J.C. (Dickson, C.J.C., Wilson, Gonthier and Cory, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 34;

Sopinka, J. - see paragraphs 35 to 37;

L'Heureux-Dubé, J. - see paragraphs 38 to 52.