R. v. McKibbon, (1984) 52 N.R. 81 (SCC)

• Judge: Ritchie, Dickson, Estey, Lamer and Wilson, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court of Canada
• Case Date: Thursday March 08, 1984
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1984), 52 N.R. 81 (SCC);52 NR 81;1984 CanLII 67 (SCC);3 OAC 85;38 CR (3d) 305;10 CCC (3d) 193;[1984] 1 SCR 131;6 DLR (4th) 1

R. v. McKibbon (1984), 52 N.R. 81 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. McKibbon

Indexed As: R. v. McKibbon

Supreme Court of Canada

Ritchie, Dickson, Estey, Lamer and Wilson, JJ.

March 8, 1984.

Summary:

The accused was charged with break and entry with intent and impersonating a police officer. After a preliminary inquiry the accused was committed for trial on both counts. The judge refused to commit for trial on two additional offences arising out of the same transaction as the other counts as disclosed in the preliminary inquiry evidence. The Crown then preferred an indictment containing the two original counts and also the two additional counts disclosed by the evidence at the preliminary inquiry. The accused applied to quash the additional counts. The Ontario High Court in a judgment reported 61 C.C.C.(2d) 126; 34 O.R.(2d) 185, dismissed the application. The Ontario Court of Appeal in a judgment reported 64 C.C.C.(2d) 441; 35 O.R.(2d) 124, dismissed the accused's appeal. The accused appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, Dickson and Wilson, JJ., dissenting, dismissed the appeal. The court held that the Crown could prefer an indictment including counts with which the accused was not originally charged, but which were disclosed in the evidence at the preliminary inquiry.

Criminal Law - Topic 4262

Procedure - Indictments - Preferring of indictment - History of - The Supreme Court of Canada considered the history and development of the preferring of indictments in Canada with particular reference to the power of the Crown to prefer an indictment on counts not originally charged, but disclosed in preliminary inquiry evidence - See paragraphs 14 to 50.

Criminal Law - Topic 4274

Procedure - Indictments - Amendment - Adding count disclosed by evidence at preliminary inquiry - Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, s. 507(2) - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Crown could prefer an indictment containing counts not originally charged but disclosed in the evidence at a preliminary inquiry.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Chabot, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 985; 34 N.R. 361, consd. [paras. 3, 43, 52, 54].

R. v. Dwyer and Lauzon (1978), 42 C.C.C.(2d) 83, revd. on other grounds 27 N.R. 488; 47 C.C.C.(2d) 1 (S.C.C.), consd. [paras. 11, 65].

R. v. G & P International News Ltd. and Judd (1973), 12 C.C.C. 169; 23 C.R.N.S. 369, consd. [paras. 11, 65].

R. v. Philbin and Henderson, [1978] 1 W.W.R. 122; 6 A.R. 506, consd. [paras. 11, 65].

R. v. Wilson (1878), 43 U.C.Q.B. 583, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. St. Louis (1897), 1 C.C.C. 141, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Hamilton (1898), 2 C.C.C. 178 (N.S.C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Duff (no. 2), 15 C.C.C. 454, consd. [para. 29].

Criminal Code, In Re (1910), 43 S.C.R. 434, consd. [paras. 31, 60].

R. v. King (1956), 114 C.C.C. 125, refd to. [paras. 34].

R. v. Sommervill (1963), 40 C.R. 384, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Biernacki (1962), 37 C.R. 226, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Beaudry, [1967] 1 C.C.C. 272, refd to. [para. 38].

Doyle v. R., [1977] 1 S.C.R. 597; 9 N.R. 285; 10 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 45; 17 A.P.R. 45; 29 C.C.C.(2d) 177; 68 D.L.R.(3d) 270; 35 C.R.N.S. 1, refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. Dwyer (1976), 38 C.R.N.S. 129 (O.H.C.), revd. 42 C.C.C.(2d) 83 (O.C.A.), restored 27 N.R. 488, 47 C.C.C.(2d) 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 65].

Stewart et al., Re v. R. No. 2 (1977), 35 C.C.C.(2d) 381 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 67].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 496 [paras. 8, 55]; sect. 504 [paras. 47, 56]; sect. 505 [para. 47]; sect. 507 [paras. 7, 57].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Stephen, History of the Criminal Law of England, vol. 1, pp. 293 et seq. [para. 15].

Tremeear's Criminal Code (2nd Ed. 1908) [para. 23].

Counsel:

David Smye, for the applicant;

David H. Doherty, for the respondent.

This case was heard on May 18, 1983, at Ottawa, Ontario, before Ritchie, Dickson, Estey, Lamer and Wilson, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On March 8, 1984, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered and the following opinions were filed:

Lamer, J. - see paragraphs 1 to 50;

Dickson, J., dissenting - see paragraphs 51 to 89.

Ritchie and Estey, JJ., concurred with Lamer, J.

Wilson, J., concurred with Dickson, J.