R. v. Penno, (1990) 115 N.R. 249 (SCC)

• Judge: Lamer, C.J.C., Wilson, La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier and McLachlin, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 31, 1990
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1990), 115 N.R. 249 (SCC);29 MVR (2d) 161;1990 CanLII 88 (SCC);42 OAC 271;AZ-90111094;115 NR 249;49 CRR 50;80 CR (3d) 97;59 CCC (3d) 344;[1990] SCJ No 96 (QL);[1990] 2 SCR 865;[1990] ACS no 96;JE 90-1423

R. v. Penno (1990), 115 N.R. 249 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Stanley Penno (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent)

(20234)

Indexed As: R. v. Penno

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., Wilson, La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier and McLachlin, JJ.

October 4, 1990.

Summary:

The accused was charged with robbery, contrary to s. 303 of the Criminal Code, with theft of an automobile, contrary to s. 294(a) of the Code, with possession of stolen property, contrary to s. 312(a), and with having care and control of a motor vehicle while his ability to drive was impaired by alcohol, contrary to s. 234 of the Code. The trial judge acquitted the accused on all charges, finding that the accused was so intoxicated that he did not have the capacity to form the required intent to commit any of the offences. The Crown appealed only the acquittal respecting the care and control charge.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a decision reported in 18 O.A.C. 31; 30 C.C.C.(3d) 553; 45 M.V.R. 28, allowed the appeal, set aside the acquittal and entered a verdict of guilty. The Court of Appeal remitted the matter to the trial judge for sentencing. The accused appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 3126

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Fair hearing - What constitutes - A majority of the Supreme Court of Canada (per McLachlin, J.), held that to allow the Crown, as the appellant in a criminal trial, to raise an issue for the first time during an appeal would violate the accused's right to a fair trial and to make full answer and defence in s. 7 of the Charter - See paragraph 3.

Civil Rights - Topic 3133

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Right of accused to make full answer and defence - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3126].

Civil Rights - Topic 3133

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Right of accused to make full answer and defence - Drunkenness or intoxication was held unavailable as a defence to a charge of having care and control of a motor vehicle while impaired under s. 234 of the Criminal Code - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the exclusion or unavailability of this defence did not violate the accused's right to make full answer and defence or the principles of fundamental justice in ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter - The court held that the mental element of the offence lay in voluntarily becoming intoxicated - Lamer, C.J.C., concurring in the result only, held that the denial of the defence was contrary to the Charter, but justified under s. 1 - See paragraphs 26 to 29, 32 to 47, 71 to 85 and 89 to 91.

Civil Rights - Topic 8467

Charter - Interpretation - Interrelationship among Charter rights - McLachlin, J., of the Supreme Court of Canada discussed the relationship between ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter - See paragraph 7.

Civil Rights - Topic 8546

Charter - Interpretation - Life, liberty and security of the person - [See second Civil Rights - Topic 3133].

Civil Rights - Topic 8547

Charter - Interpretation - Principles of fundamental justice - [See second Civil Rights - Topic 3133].

Criminal Law - Topic 33

Mens rea or intention - Crimes of specific intent v. crimes of general or basic intent - [See second Civil Rights - Topic 3133].

Criminal Law - Topic 33

Mens rea or intention - Crimes of specific intent v. crimes of general or basic intent - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the offence of having care and control of a motor vehicle while impaired in s. 234 of the Criminal Code was one of general intent; therefore, the defence of drunkenness was unavailable - The court held that where impairment is an essential element of the offence, a defence of lack of intent based on the same impairment was unavailable - See paragraphs 5, 12 to 18, 31, 33, 40, 45, 67 and 88.

Criminal Law - Topic 1361

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Intention - [See second Criminal Law - Topic 33].

Criminal Law - Topic 1361

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Intention - A majority of the Supreme Court of Canada (per McLachlin, J.), stated that "intention to set the vehicle in motion is relevant to s. 37(1)(a) [of the Criminal Code]; it is not relevant to s. 234(1)" - See paragraph 3.

Evidence - Topic 2284

Judicial notice - Road and highway matters - Drunk driving - Lamer, C.J.C., of the Supreme Court of Canada took judicial notice of the danger and disastrous results when drinking and driving are combined - See paragraph 79.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Whyte, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 3; 86 N.R. 328, refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. Toews, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 119; 61 N.R. 349, refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. Ford, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 231; 40 N.R. 451; 36 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 254; 101 A.P.R. 254; 65 C.C.C.(2d) 392; 13 M.V.R. 239; 133 D.L.R.(3d) 567, refd to. [para. 3].

Reference Re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Vaillancourt, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 636; 81 N.R. 115; 10 Q.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Bernard, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 833; 90 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Leary, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 29; 13 N.R. 592, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. King, [1962] S.C.R. 746, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. George, [1960] S.C.R. 871, refd to. [para. 58].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335; 26 D.L.R.(4th) 200; 50 C.R.(3d) 1; 24 C.C.C.(3d) 321, refd to. [para. 79].

Saunders v. The Queen, [1967] S.C.R. 284, refd to. [para. 82].

Curr v. The Queen, [1972] S.C.R. 889, refd to. [para. 82].

R. v. Hufsky, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 621; 84 N.R. 365; 27 O.A.C. 103, refd to. [para. 82].

R. v. Thomsen, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 640; 84 N.R. 347, refd to. [para. 82].

R. v. Lyons, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 309; 80 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 90].

R. v. Beare; R. v. Higgins, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 387; 88 N.R. 205; 71 Sask.R., refd to. [para. 90].

R. v. Corbett, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 670; 85 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 90].

R. v. Jones, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 284; 69 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 90].

Thomson Newspapers Ltd. v. Director of Investigation and Research, Combines Investigation Act et al., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 425; 106 N.R. 161; 39 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 90].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1 [paras. 4, 47, 76-80]; sect. 7 [paras. 1, 4, 6-7, 25, 28, 32, 69-71, 76, 79, 82, 89, 91]; sect. 11(d) [paras. 1, 4, 6-7, 25, 28, 32, 42, 64, 69-71, 74, 76, 79, 82, 89, 91].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 234 [paras. 1, 25, 28, 31-32, 40, 43, 45, 48, 50, 54-56, 77, 84]; sect. 234(1) [paras. 2-4, 6, 11-13, 18, 20, 25, 40, 44-46, 88-91]; sect. 234(1)(a) [paras. 57, 61, 65, 69, 80, 84]; sect. 237 [paras. 50, 56]; sect. 237(1)(a) [paras. 3, 62, 64].

Criminal Code of Germany (Strafgesetzbuch), sect. 323(a)(i) [para. 23].

Criminal Law Amendment Act 1 of South Africa, 1988, generally [para. 23].

Criminal Law Amendment Act 14 of Bophuthatswana, 1984, sect. 1 [para. 23].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Butler Report, Report of the Committee on Mentally Abnormal Offenders, 1975 (Cmnd. 6244) [para. 23].

Herrmann, J., Causing the Conditions of One's Own Defense: The Multifaceted Approach of German Law, [1986] B.Y.U.L. Rev. 747 [para. 23].

Mitchell, C.N., The Intoxicated Offender - Refuting the Legal and Medical Myths (1988), 11 Int. J.L. Psychiatry 77, pp. 77-78 [para. 21].

Paizes, A., Intoxication Through the Looking-Glass (1988), 105 S.A.L.J. 776 [para. 23].

Quigley, T., Reform of the Intoxication Defence (1987), 33 McGill L.J. 1 [para. 24].

Schabas, P.B., Intoxication and Culpability: Towards an Offence of Criminal Intoxication (1984), 42 U.T. Fac. L. Rev. 147 [para. 24].

Skeen, A. St. Q, Intoxication Is No Longer a Complete Defence in Bophuthatswana: Will South Africa Follow Suit (1984), 101 S.A.L.J. 707 [para. 23].

Williams, Glanville and J.C. Smith, Criminal Law Revision Committee Fourteenth Report, 1980 (Cmnd. 7844) [para. 23].

Counsel:

Melvyn Green, for the appellant;

Jeff Casey and Susan Chapman, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Ruby & Edwardh, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant;

Attorney General for Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard before Lamer, C.J.C., Wilson, La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier and McLachlin, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada on January 31, 1990. On October 4, 1990, the Supreme Court of Canada delivered the following opinions in both official languages:

McLachlin, J. (Sopinka and Gonthier, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 30;

Wilson, J. (L'Heureux-Dubé, J., concurring) - see paragraphs 31 to 49;

Lamer, C.J.C. - see paragraphs 50 to 86;

La Forest, J. - see paragraphs 87 to 91.