R. v. McKay (A.J.), (2007) 365 N.R. 300 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron and Rothstein, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: March 23, 2007
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2007), 365 N.R. 300 (SCC);[2007] 1 SCR 793;[2007] 8 WWR 631;217 CCC (3d) 481;2007 SCC 16;220 Man R (2d) 1;[2007] SCJ No 16 (QL);45 CR (6th) 1;365 NR 300

R. v. McKay (A.J.) (2007), 365 N.R. 300 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Temp. Cite: [2007] N.R. TBEd. MY.001

Ambroise Joseph McKay v. Her Majesty the Queen (31641)

Indexed As: R. v. McKay (A.J.)

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron and Rothstein, JJ.

March 23, 2007.

Summary:

The accused was charged with aggravated assault after he wounded a trespasser with a knife. The trial judge acquitted the accused, relying on the defence of property provision of the Criminal Code (i.e., s. 41). The Crown appealed.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal, in a decision reported 208 Man.R.(2d) 15; 383 W.A.C. 15, allowed the appeal and substituted a verdict of guilty in place of the acquittal. The accused appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and remitted the matter for a new trial.

Criminal Law - Topic 234

General principles - Statutory defences or exceptions - Defence of property - The accused was charged with aggravated assault after he wounded a trespasser with a knife - The trial judge acquitted the accused, relying on the defence of property provision (Criminal Code, s. 41) - The Crown appealed - The Manitoba Court of Appeal substituted a verdict of guilty - The accused appealed - The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal - The court agreed that the acquittal had to be set aside where defence of property under s. 41 alone could not justify the commission of the aggravated assault alleged in this case - The court was not satisfied, however, that the findings of the trial judge sufficed to ground the conviction entered by the Court of Appeal - The court cautioned that "in so concluding, we should not be taken as endorsing the Court of Appeal's analysis on the scope of the defence of property. By way of clarification, we should not be taken as endorsing the view that 'defence of property alone will never justify the use of anything more than minor force being used against a trespasser' (para. 15) or that, in all cases, 'the defence of property alone will not justify the intentional use of a weapon against a trespasser (para. 23)'."

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 41 [para. 1].

Counsel:

Evan Roitenberg and Paul Cooper, for the appellant;

Brian Wilford and Richard Saull, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

[None disclosed.]

This appeal was heard by McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron and Rothstein, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The following decision of the court was delivered orally, in both official languages, by McLachlin, C.J.C., on March 23, 2007.