R. v. Lohnes, (1992) 132 N.R. 297 (SCC)

• Judge: Cory, McLachlin, Stevenson and Iacobucci, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 23, 1992
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1992), 132 N.R. 297 (SCC);JE 92-190;109 NSR (2d) 145;1992 CanLII 112 (SCC);[1992] SCJ No 6 (QL);[1992] CarswellNS 11;15 WCB (2d) 83;132 NR 297;10 CR (4th) 125;69 CCC (3d) 289;[1992] 1 SCR 167;297 APR 145

R. v. Lohnes (1992), 132 N.R. 297 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Donald Hector Lohnes (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent)

(22278)

Indexed As: R. v. Lohnes

Supreme Court of Canada

L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier,

Cory, McLachlin, Stevenson and

Iacobucci, JJ.

January 23, 1992.

Summary:

The accused was convicted under ss. 171(1)(a)(i) and 175(1)(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code of causing a disturbance in a public place by using obscene language and insult­ing language. The accused applied for leave to appeal.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Appeal Division, in a judgment reported 100 N.S.R.(2d) 268; 272 A.P.R. 268, denied leave to appeal. The accused appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, quashed the convictions and substi­tuted acquittals.

Criminal Law - Topic 751

Disorderly conduct - Causing a public disturbance - Section 175(1) made it an offence to cause a disturbance in or near a public place - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "the disturbance con­templated by s. 175(1)(a) is something more than mere emotional upset. There must be an externally manifested disturb­ance of the public peace, in the sense of interference with the ordinary and custom­ary use of the premises by the public. There may be direct evidence of such an effect or interference, or it may be inferred ... under s. 175(2). The disturbance may consist of the impugned act itself, as in the case of a fight interfering with the peaceful use of a barroom, or it may flow as a consequence of the impugned act, as where shouting and swearing produce a scuffle ... the disturbance must be one which may reasonably have been foreseen in the par­ticular circumstances of time and place" - See paragraph 30.

Criminal Law - Topic 751

Disorderly conduct - Causing a public disturbance - Section 175(1) made it an offence to cause a disturbance in or near a public place - The accused yelled insults and obscenities from his veranda at his neighbour - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal affirmed the accused's conviction, stating that there was no requirement that a secondary disturbance result - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Court of Appeal applied the wrong test - The court stated that where there was no evidence that the conduct of the complain­ant or anyone else was affected or dis­turbed by the language, conviction under s. 175(1) could not stand.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. C.D. (1973), 6 N.B.R.(2d) 200; 13 C.C.C.(2d) 206 (C.A.), consd. [para. 12].

R. v. Swinimer (1978), 25 N.S.R.(2d) 512; 36 A.P.R. 512; 40 C.C.C.(2d) 432 (C.A.), disagreed with [para. 12].

R. v. Peters (1982), 65 C.C.C.(2d) 83 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Wolgram (1975), 29 C.C.C.(2d) 536 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Skoke-Graham et al., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 106; 57 N.R. 321; 67 N.S.R.(2d) 181; 155 A.P.R. 181; 17 C.C.C.(3d) 289, consd. [para. 16].

R. v. Chikoski (1973), 14 C.C.C.(2d) 38 (Ont. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Eyre (1972), 10 C.C.C.(2d) 236 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 17].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, S.C. 1947, c. 55, sect. 3 [para. 11].

Criminal Code, S.C. 1953-54, c. 51, sect. 160 [para. 11].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 175(1)(a), sect. 175(2) [para. 5].

Public Orders Act 1986 (U.K.), 1986, c. 64, generally [para. 22].

Vagrants, An Act Respecting, S.C. 1869, c. 28, generally [para. 11].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Le Petit Robert 1 (1990), generally [para. 24].

Counsel:

Del Atwood, for the appellant;

Denise C. Smith and Dana W. Giovannetti, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Del Atwood, Bridgewater, N.S., for the appellant;

Attorney General of Nova Scotia, Halifax, N.S., for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on November 1, 1991, before L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Stevenson and Iacobucci, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On January 23, 1992, McLachlin, J., delivered the following judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in both official languages.