R. v. Martineau, (1990) 112 N.R. 83 (SCC)

• Judge: Dickson, C.J.C., Lamer, C.J.C.*, Wilson, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier and Cory, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: September 13, 1990
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1990), 112 N.R. 83 (SCC);76 Alta LR (2d) 1;[1990] ACS no 84;11 WCB (2d) 3;[1990] SCJ No 84 (QL);[1990] 2 SCR 633;1990 CanLII 80 (SCC);109 AR 321;[1990] 6 WWR 97;58 CCC (3d) 353;112 NR 83;79 CR (3d) 129;JE 90-1395;50 CRR 110

R. v. Martineau (1990), 112 N.R. 83 (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. Roderick Russell Martineau (respondent) and Attorney General of Canada, Attorney General for Ontario, Attorney General of Quebec, Attorney General of Manitoba and Attorney General of British Columbia (intervenors)

(21122)

Indexed As: R. v. Martineau

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 appealed his conviction for second degree murder on the ground that ss. 212(c) and 213(a) of the Criminal Code, alone or in conjunction with s. 21(2), violated an accused's right to life, liberty and security of the person and the presumption of innocence under ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, in a judgment reported 89 A.R. 162, allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and ordered a new trial. The court held that s. 213(a) violated ss. 7 and 11(d), was not a reasonable limit prescribed by law under s. 1 of the Charter, and was therefore invalid. The court found it unnecessary to determine the validity of s. 212(c). The Crown appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, L'Heureux-Dubé, J., dissenting, dismissed the appeal. The court stated that it was a principle of fundamental justice that a conviction for murder could not rest on anything less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt of subjective foresight of death. Accordingly, the court opined that s. 212(c), insofar as it permitted a conviction upon proof that the accused ought to have known that death was likely to result (objective foresight), also violated ss. 7 and 11) and would also not be saved by s. 1.

*(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 - [See second Civil Rights - Topic

4949].

Civil Rights - Topic 4949

Presumption of innocence - Evidence - Proof - Removal of element of intent - Section 213(a) of the Criminal Code provided that culpable homicide was murder where a person caused death while committing or attempting to commit, inter alia, a break and enter, whether or not the person meant to cause death and whether he knew that death was likely to be caused, if he meant to cause bodily harm for the purpose of facilitating the commission of the offence or facilitating his flight, and death ensued as a consequence - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that s. 213(a) violated ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and was not a reasonable limit prescribed by law under s. 1 - The court held that a prerequisite to a murder conviction was proof of subjective foresight of death.

Civil Rights - Topic 4949

Presumption of innocence - Evidence - Proof - Removal of element of intent - Section 212(c) of the Criminal Code provided that culpable homicide was murder where a person, for an unlawful object, did anything that he knew or ought to know was likely to cause death, and thereby caused death to a human being, notwithstanding that he desired to effect his object without causing death or bodily harm - The Supreme Court of Canada opined that s. 212(c) violated ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and was not a reasonable limit prescribed by law under s. 1, even though the validity of s. 212(c) was not raised on appeal - The court stated that a prerequisite to a murder conviction was proof of subjective foresight of death.

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law - [See both Civil Rights - Topic 4949].

Civil Rights - Topic 8546

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Life, liberty and security of the person - [See both Civil Rights - Topic 4949].

Criminal Law - Topic 1273

Murder - During commission of other offences - Intent - [See both Civil Rights - Topic 4949].

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. 1, 20, 35].

Singh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 177; 58 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 6].

Reference Re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266, refd to. [paras. 6, 90].

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, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. City of Sault Ste. Marie, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1299; 21 N.R. 295, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Bernard, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 833; 90 N.R. 321; 31 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Buzzanga and Durocher (1979), 49 C.C.C.(2d) 369 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Rodney, (1990), 112 N.R. 167, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Logan (1990), 112 N.R. 144, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Arkell (1990), 112 N.R. 175, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Luxton (1990), 112 N.R. 193, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Munro and Munro (1983), 8 C.C.C.(3d) 260 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 58].

R. v. Hughes (1942), 78 C.C.C. 257, refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Ashman (1858), 1 F. & F. 88; 175 E.R. 638, refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Archibald (1898), 4 C.C.C. 159 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Bottrell (1981), 60 C.C.C.(2d) 211 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Marshall (1987), 26 A. Crim. R. 259 (Ct. Cr. App. S. Aust.), refd to. [para. 75].

R. v. Van Beelen (1973), 4 S.A.S.R. 353 (S.C. S. Aust.), refd to. [para. 75].

Tison v. Arizona (1987), 107 S. Ct. 1676, refd to. [para. 80].

Gregg v. Georgia (1976), 428 U.S. 153, refd to. [para. 80].

People v. Rose (1986), 227 Cal. Rep. 570, refd to. [para. 83].

R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 713; 71 N.R. 161; 19 O.A.C. 239; 55 C.R.(3d) 193; 35 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 30 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 28 C.R.R. 1, refd to. [para. 87].

R. v. Edwards Books and Art Ltd. - see R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al.

Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (Procureur général), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; 94 N.R. 167; 24 Q.A.C. 2, refd to. [para. 88].

R. v. Arkell (1988), 43 C.C.C.(3d) 402 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 95].

R. v. Smith (E.D.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1045; 75 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 98].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1, sect. 7 [para. 1]; sect. 11(d) [para. 92].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 21 [para. 39]; sect. 212(a) [para. 41]; sect. 212(c) [para. 13]; sect. 213 [para. 34]; sect. 213(a) [para. 5]; sect. 213(d) [para. 52].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Archbold, Pleading and Evidence (1st Ed. 1822), generally [para. 61].

Ashworth, The Elasticity of Mens Rea, in Crime, Proof and Punishment (1981), generally [para. 10].

Canada, Proceedings of the Standing Committee on Banking and Commerce (June 21, 1961), p. 41 [para. 66].

Coke, Edward, The Third Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England (6th Ed. 1680), p. 47 [para. 61].

Cross, The Mental Element in Crime (1967), 83 L.Q.R. 215, generally [para. 10].

Crump and Crump, In Defense of the Felony Murder Doctrine (1985), 8 Harv. J. of L. and P.P. 359, pp. 362363 [para. 101]; 366 [para. 71]; 370371 [para. 102].

Edwards, Constructive Murder in Canadian and English Law (1959), 3 Cr. L.Q. 481, p. 491 [para. 61].

England, British Parliamentary Papers, Criminal Law (1879), vol. 6, pp. 468470 [para. 61].

Gilbert, Degrees of Felony Murder (1983), 40 Wash. and Lee L. Rev. 1601, generally [para. 80].

Goff, The Mental Element in the Crime of Murder (1988), 104 L.Q.R. 30, pp. 36 [para. 14]; 58 [para. 74].

Gordon, Gerald H., Subjective and Objective Mens Rea, [1975] Crim. L.Q. 355, pp. 359 [para. 45]; 368 [para. 46]; 371 [para. 48]; 389-390 [para. 49].

Hart, Punishment and Responsibility (1968), p. 162 [para. 10].

Holmes, The Common Law, pp. 53-54 [para. 44].

Homicide in Canada: Offences Committed During the Commission of Another Criminal Act, generally [para. 86].

LaFave and Scott, Substantive Criminal Law (1986), vol. 2, para. 7.4 [para. 81].

Lindsay, The Implications of R. v. Vaillancourt: Much Ado About Nothing? (1989), 47 U. of T. Fac. Law Rev. 465, p. 472 [para. 99].

Mewett and Manning, Criminal Law (2nd Ed. 1985), p. 138 [para. 47].

Stuart, Canadian Criminal Law (2nd Ed. 1987), pp. 121, 123 [para. 43]; 217218 [para. 13].

Wells, Swatting the Subjectivist Bug, [1982] Crim. L.R. 209, p. 212 [para. 89].

Wharton's Criminal Law (14th Ed.), para. 145, pp. 204, 207, 208 [para. 82].

Williams, Glanville, Convictions and Fair Labelling (1983), 42 C.L.J. 85, generally [para. 10].

Williams, Glanville, The Mental Element in Crime (1965), generally [para. 10].

Counsel:

Jack Watson, for the appellant;

Philip Lister and Sheila Schumacher, for the respondent;

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

W.J. Blacklock and Ken Campbell, for the Attorney General for Ontario;

Jacques Gauvin, for the Attorney General of Quebec;

J.G. Dangerfield, Q.C., and Marva J. Smith, for the Attorney General of Manitoba;

James D. Taylor, for the Attorney General of British Columbia.

Solicitors of Record:

Jack Watson, Edmonton, Alberta, for the appellant;

Philip G. Lister, Edmonton, Alberta, for the respondent;

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

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

Department of Justice, Sainte-Foy, Quebec, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of Quebec;

Attorney General of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of Manitoba;

Attorney General of British Columbia, Victoria, British Columbia, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of British Columbia.

This appeal was heard on March 26, 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 17;

Sopinka, J. - see paragraphs 18 to 30;

L'Heureux-Dubé, J., dissenting - see paragraphs 31 to 108;