R. v. Paice (C.D.J.), (2005) 332 N.R. 159 (SCC)

• Judge: Major, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court of Canada
• Case Date: Wednesday December 15, 2004
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2005), 332 N.R. 159 (SCC);2005 SCC 22;262 Sask R 171;195 CCC (3d) 97;[2005] SCJ No 21 (QL);JE 2005-798;AZ-50309179;[2005] 1 SCR 339;29 CR (6th) 1;[2006] 3 WWR 38;251 DLR (4th) 193;332 NR 159

R. v. Paice (C.D.J.) (2005), 332 N.R. 159 (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: [2005] N.R. TBEd. AP.025

Christiano Daniel Justin Paice (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) and Attorney General of Ontario (intervenor)

(30045; 2005 SCC 22; 2005 CSC 22)

Indexed As: R. v. Paice (C.D.J.)

Supreme Court of Canada

Major, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron, JJ.

April 22, 2005.

Summary:

The accused was acquitted on a man­slaughter charge on the basis of s. 34(1) of the Crimi­nal Code (self-defence against an unprovoked assault). The Crown appealed.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, in a decision reported 238 Sask.R. 195; 305 W.A.C. 195, allowed the appeal, set aside the acquittal and ordered a new trial, where the trial judge erred in applying s. 34(1). The accused appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, but for different reasons than the Court of Appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 239

General principles - Statu­tory defences or exceptions - Self-defence - Paice (the ac­cused) and Bauck, who were drinking at a bar, had a dis­pute and went outside to fight - During the fight Paice punched Bauck in the head and face - Bauck died - Paice was charged with man­slaugh­ter, but was ac­quitted on the basis of s. 34(1) of the Crim­inal Code (self-de­fence against an un­provoked assault) - The Crown appealed - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal al­lowed the appeal, set aside the acquittal and ordered a new trial - Paice appealed - The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the ap­peal - The court held that the trial judge, in deter­mining whether the parties had consented to the fight, overextended the principle in R. v. Jobidon (SCC, 1991), which led him into error in his subse­quent consideration of the elements of self-de­fence - See para­graphs 1 to 23.

Criminal Law - Topic 239

General principles - Statutory defences or exceptions - Self-defence - Paice (the ac­cused) and Bauck, who were drinking at a bar, had a dispute and went outside to fight - During the fight the Paice punched Bauck in the head and face - Bauck died - Paice was charged with manslaughter, but was acquitted under s. 34(1) of the Crimi­nal Code (self-defence against an unpro­voked assault) - The Crown appealed - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal ordered a new trial - Paice appealed - The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, but for different reasons than the Court of Ap­peal - The court, per Charron, J., stated that "I agree with the conclusion of the Court of Appeal that self-defence under s. 34(1) is not available to either combatant in a consensual fist fight because neither could be heard to say that he has been the innocent victim of an unprovoked assault when he has consented to the fight. How­ever, as I will explain, it is unclear from the reasons of the trial judge whether he found as a fact that this was a consensual fight. The fact that Mr. Bauck had agreed to fight was not a contentious issue at trial and the trial judge correctly held that Mr. Paice could not rely on that consent in de­fence to a charge of manslaughter. What is not clear from the reasons is whether the trial judge found that Mr. Paice had also consented to the fight. If Mr. Paice con­sented to the fight, he could not claim to have acted in self-defence within the scope of s. 34(1), although other provisions may have to be considered. If, on the other hand, Mr. Bauck was the sole aggressor, self-defence under s. 34(1) could not be ruled out. These are all matters that will have to be determined on the new trial" - See paragraph 4.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Jobidon, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 714; 128 N.R. 321; 49 O.A.C. 83, refd to. [paras. 2, 24].

Attorney General's Reference (No. 6 of 1980), [1981] 2 All E.R. 1057 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 11, 29].

R. v. Squire (1975), 26 C.C.C.(2d) 219 (Ont. C.A.), revd. [1977] 2 S.C.R. 13; 10 N.R. 25, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Yebes, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 168; 78 N.R. 351, refd to. [paras. 21, 38].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 34(1) [para. 15].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Stuart, Donald, Canadian Criminal Law: A Treatise (4th Ed. 2001), pp. 263 to 265 [para. 26].

Counsel:

Aaron A. Fox, Q.C., and James Korpan, for the appellant;

W. Dean Sinclair, for the respondent;

Michael Bernstein and Greg Tweney, for the intervener.

Solicitors of Record:

McDougall Gauley, Regina, Saskatchewan, for the appellant.

Attorney General for Saskatchewan, Re­gina, Saskatchewan, for the respon­dent.

Attorney General of Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener.

This appeal was heard on December 15, 2004, before Major, Binnie, LeBel, Des­champs, Fish, Abella and Charron, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision of the court was delivered on April 22, 2005, in both official languages, including the follow­ing opinions:

Charron, J. (Major, Binnie, LeBel, Des­champs and Abella, JJ.) - see para­graphs 1 to 23;

Fish, J. (concurring reasons) - see para­graphs 24 to 43.