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

JurisdictionFederal Jurisdiction (Canada)
JudgeDickson, C.J.C., Lamer, C.J.C.*, Wilson, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier and Cory, JJ.
Citation(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
CourtSupreme Court (Canada)
Date13 September 1990

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;

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex
420 practice notes
  • R. v. Ruzic (M.),
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • June 13, 2000
    ...353, refd to. [para. 35]. R. v. Bernard, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 833; 90 N.R. 321; 32 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 37]. R. v. Martineau, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 633; 112 N.R. 83; 109 A.R. 321; 58 C.C.C.(3d) 353; [1990] 6 W.W.R. 97, refd to. [para. R. v. DeSousa, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 944; 142 N.R. 1; 56 O.A.C. 10......
  • R. v. Sharpe (J.R.), (2001) 146 B.C.A.C. 161 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • January 26, 2001
    ...Co. et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 877; 226 N.R. 1; 109 O.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 78]. R. v. Martineau, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 633; 112 N.R. 83; 109 A.R. 321; 58 C.C.C.(3d) 353; [1990] 6 W.W.R. 97; 79 C.R.(3d) 129; 76 Alta. L.R.(2d) 1; 50 C.R.R. 110, refd to. [para. R. v. W......
  • R. v. Finta (I.),
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • March 24, 1994
    ...and Chedore, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 154; 130 N.R. 1; 49 O.A.C. 161; 67 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 8 C.R.(4th) 145, refd to. [para. 77]. R. v. Martineau, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 633; 112 N.R. 83; 109 A.R. 321; 58 C.C.C.(3d) 353; [1990] 6 W.W.R. 97; 79 C.R.(3d) 129; 76 Alta. L.R.(2d) 1; 50 C.P.R. 110, refd to. [para. ......
  • R. v. Brown,
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • May 13, 2022
    ...v. Canada (Attorney General), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 199; Quebec (Attorney General) v. A, 2013 SCC 5, [2013] 1 S.C.R. 61; R. v. Martineau, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 633; R. v. Dunn (1999), 28 C.R. (5th) 295; Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 519; R. v. Brenton (1999), 180 D.L......
  • Get Started for Free
314 cases
  • R. v. Denny (A.N.), 2016 NSSC 76
    • Canada
    • Nova Scotia Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
    • February 22, 2016
    ...for individual autonomy and free will and acknowledges the importance of those values to a free and democratic society: [ Martineau , [1990] 2 S.C.R. 633, at pp. 645 to 46]. Criminal liability also depends on the capacity to choose -- the ability to reason right from wrong . As McLachlin J.......
  • R. v. Malmo-Levine (D.) et al., (2003) 314 N.R. 1 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court of Canada
    • December 23, 2003
    ...227]. R. v. Nette (D.M.), [2001] 3 S.C.R. 488; 277 N.R. 301; 158 B.C.A.C. 98; 258 W.A.C. 98, refd to. [para. 227]. R. v. Martineau, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 633; 112 N.R. 83; 109 A.R. 321, refd to. [para. 228]. R. v. DeSousa, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 944; 142 N.R. 1; 56 O.A.C. 109, refd to. [para. 230]. R. v......
  • R. v. Ruzic (M.), 2001 SCC 24
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court of Canada
    • June 13, 2000
    ...353, refd to. [para. 35]. R. v. Bernard, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 833; 90 N.R. 321; 32 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 37]. R. v. Martineau, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 633; 112 N.R. 83; 109 A.R. 321; 58 C.C.C.(3d) 353; [1990] 6 W.W.R. 97, refd to. [para. R. v. DeSousa, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 944; 142 N.R. 1; 56 O.A.C. 10......
  • R. v. Latimer (R.W.), 2001 SCC 1
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court of Canada
    • January 18, 2001
    ...1; 585 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 74]. R. v. Guiller (1985), 48 C.R.(3d) 226 (Ont. Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 77]. R. v. Martineau, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 633; 112 N.R. 83; 109 A.R. 321; 58 C.C.C.(3d) 353; [1990] 6 W.W.R. 97; 79 C.R.(3d) 129; 76 Alta. L.R.(2d) 1; 50 C.P.R. 110, refd to. [para. R. ......
  • Get Started for Free
4 firm's commentaries
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (February 10 – February 14, 2020)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • April 8, 2020
    ...2012 ONCA 905, R. v. Pickton, 2010 SCC 32, R. v. Cooper, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 146, R. v. Williams, 2019 ONCA 846, R. v. Martineau, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 633, R. v. Kennedy, 2016 ONCA 879, R. v. Seaboyer, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 577, R. v. Crawford, [1995] 1 S.C.R. 858, R. v. Grant, 2015 SCC 9, R. v. Rojas, 20......
  • Ontario Court Of Appeal Summaries (April 16 – April 20, 2018)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • April 24, 2018
    ...Keywords: Criminal Law, Murder, Jury Charge, Criminal Code, ss. 21, 229, & 686, R. v. Moo, 2009 ONCA 645, R. v. Martineau, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 633, R. v. Cooper, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 146, R. v. McIntyre, 2012 ONCA 356, R. v. Daley, 2007 SCC 53, R. v. S.(W.D.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 521, R. v. Jaw, 200......
  • When Is It Too Late To Arbitrate?
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • February 17, 2022
    ...3 2012 ONCA 218 (CanLII), 109 OR (3d) 652 https://canlii.ca/t/fqvv7 4 Sattva Capital v. Creston Moly, 2014 SCC 53 (CanLII), 2014 2 SCR 633 The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circums......
  • When Is It Too Late To Arbitrate?
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • February 17, 2022
    ...3 2012 ONCA 218 (CanLII), 109 OR (3d) 652 https://canlii.ca/t/fqvv7 4 Sattva Capital v. Creston Moly, 2014 SCC 53 (CanLII), 2014 2 SCR 633 The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circums......
96 books & journal articles
  • Table of cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Sovereignty, Restraint, & Guidance. Canadian Criminal Law in the 21st Century
    • June 25, 2019
    ...R v Marshall, [1969] 3 CCC 149 (Alta SCAD) ........................................................................333 R v Martineau, [1990] 2 SCR 633 ...................................................................................13, 27, 37, 80, 81, 220, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 340, 34......
  • Rights in the Criminal Process
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Archive The Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Fifth Edition
    • August 29, 2013
    ...2 SCR 906, 59 CCC (3d) 161 at 168. 6 R v Vaillancourt , [1987] 2 SCR 636, 47 DLR (4th) 399 [ Vaillancourt ]; see also R v Martineau , [1990] 2 SCR 633, 58 CCC (3d) 353. The CharTer of righTs and freedoms 278 death before a culpable homicide can be treated as a murder. That special mental el......
  • Measuring judicial activism on the Supreme Court of Canada: a comment on Newfoundland (Treasury Board) v. NAPE.
    • Canada
    • McGill Law Journal Vol. 48 No. 3, September 2003
    • September 1, 2003
    ...114 * R. v. Logan, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 731 * R. v. Lucas, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 439 * * R. v. Lyons, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 309 * R. v. Martineau, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 633 * * R. v. McKinley Transport Ltd., [1990] 1 S.C. R.627 * R. v. Mills, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 668 * R. v. Milne, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 512 * R. v. Morales,......
  • Engaging Section 7
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Fundamental Justice: Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Second Edition
    • June 22, 2019
    ...supplemented (Scarborough, ON: Thomson Carswell, 2007) ch 37. 3 Dolphin Delivery , above note 2 at 601–2. 4 For example, R v Martineau , [1990] 2 SCR 633 (s 7 challenge to one of the deinitions of murder in the Criminal Code ); R v Malmo-Levine; R v Caine , 2003 SCC 74 [ Malmo-Levine ] (s 7......
  • Get Started for Free

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT