R. v. McGuigan, (1982) 40 N.R. 499 (SCC)

• Judge: Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Ritchie, Dickson, Estey, McIntyre, and Chouinard, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: March 02, 1982
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1982), 40 N.R. 499 (SCC);1982 CanLII 41 (SCC);[1982] 1 SCR 284;JE 82-305;40 NR 499;7 WCB 258;26 CR (3d) 289;66 CCC (2d) 97;134 DLR (3d) 625;[1982] SCJ No 9 (QL)

R. v. McGuigan (1982), 40 N.R. 499 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. McGuigan

Indexed As: R. v. McGuigan

Supreme Court of Canada

Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Ritchie, Dickson, Estey, McIntyre, and Chouinard, JJ.

March 2, 1982.

Summary:

The accused was charged jointly with two others with attempted robbery and with attempting to commit robbery with the use of a firearm. The accused all pleaded guilty to attempted robbery, but pleaded not guilty to the firearm offence. The trial judge acquitted the accused on the firearm offence on the ground that a conviction would result in another conviction for the same subject matter as the attempted robbery offence. The Ontario Court of Appeal in a judgment reported 50 C.C.C.(2d) 306 allowed the Crown's appeal. The accused appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal. See paragraphs 1 to 35. Laskin, C.J.C., Ritchie, J., concurring, dissented. See paragraphs 36 to 72.

Criminal Law - Topic 82

Res judicata - Multiple convictions for same subject matter precluded - Bars to raising the defence - The accused was charged with attempted robbery with the use of a shotgun and also with using the shotgun while attempting the robbery contrary to s. 83 of the Criminal Code of Canada - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the accused could be convicted of both the attempted robbery and of using a firearm while committing the robbery - See paragraphs 15 to 35.

Criminal Law - Topic 1438

Offences against the person and reputation - Firearms - Use of - During offence - Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, s. 83 - The Supreme Court of Canada held that an accused could be convicted of using a firearm during an offence, notwithstanding that it was an accomplice, not the accused, who actually used the firearm during the offence - See paragraphs 12 to 14, 38, 40.

Statutes - Topic 1624

Interpretation - Extrinsic aids - Other statutes - Prior statutes respecting the same subject matter - The Supreme Court of Canada considered previous versions of s. 83 of the Criminal Code of Canada in construing section 83 - See paragraph 17.

Statutes - Topic 1641

Interpretation - Legislative history - General - The Supreme Court of Canada considered the legislative history of s. 83 of the Criminal Code of Canada in construing s. 83 - See paragraphs 26 to 31, 34, 53 to 61.

Cases Noticed:

Kienapple v. R., [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729; 1 N.R. 322; 15 C.C.C.(2d) 524; 44 D.L.R.(3d) 351; 26 C.R.N.S. 1, dist. [para. 4].

Zanini v. The Queen, [1967] S.C.R. 715, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Langevin (1979), 47 C.C.C.(2d) 138, folld. [para. 16].

R. v. Matheson (1979), 1 Man.R.(2d) 111; 50 C.C.C.(2d) 92; revd. 37 N.R. 451; 12 Man.R.(2d) 375 (S.C.C.), folld. [para. 16].

R. v. Nicholson, [1980] 5 W.W.R. 115; 2 Man.R.(2d) 367, folld. [para. 16].

R. v. Eby (1979), 33 N.S.R.(2d) 81; 57 A.P.R. 81; 49 C.C.C.(2d) 27, folld. [para. 16].

R. v. Pineault; R. v. Berube (1979), 12 C.R.(3d) 129, folld. [para. 16].

R. v. Quon, [1948] S.C.R. 508, dist. [para. 17].

Cox and Paton v. The Queen, [1963] S.C.R. 500, refd to. [para. 32].

Paquette v. The Queen, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 189; 11 N.R. 451, dist. [para. 40].

R. v. Falconer and Mann, [1970] 4 C.C.C. 362, consd. [para. 47].

R. v. Desrosiers (1978), 47 C.C.C.(2d) 253, consd. [para. 51].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 21 [paras. 12, 39]; sect. 83 [paras. 11, 27, 39]; sect. 613(4)(b)(ii) [para. 48].

Counsel:

Andrew Kerekes, for the appellant;

Parl Lindsay, for the respondent.

This case was heard on October 26, 1981, at Ottawa, Ontario, before LASKIN, C.J.C., MARTLAND, RITCHIE, DICKSON, ESTEY, McINTYRE, and CHOUINARD, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On March 2, 1982, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered and the following opinions were filed:

Dickson, J. - see paragraphs 1 to 35;

Laskin, C.J.C., dissenting in part - see paragraphs 36 to 72.

MARTLAND, ESTEY, McINTYRE and CHOUINARD, JJ., concurred with DICKSON, J.

RITCHIE, J., concurred with LASKIN, C.J.C.