R. v. Proudlock, (1978) 24 N.R. 199 (SCC)

• Judge: Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Ritchie, Spence, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz, Estey and Pratte, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: October 17, 1978
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1978), 24 N.R. 199 (SCC);[1978] ACS no 100;3 WCB 20;24 NR 199;5 CR (3d) 21;[1979] SCJ No 100 (QL);[1979] 1 SCR 525;1978 CanLII 15 (SCC);43 CCC (2d) 321;[1978] 6 WWR 357;91 DLR (3d) 449;[1978] CarswellBC 496

R. v. Proudlock (1978), 24 N.R. 199 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Proudlock

Indexed As: R. v. Proudlock

Supreme Court of Canada

Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Ritchie, Spence, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz, Estey and Pratte, JJ.

October 17, 1978.

Summary:

This case arose out of a charge of breaking and entering with intent to commit an indictable offence therein contrary to s. 306 of the Criminal Code of Canada. At trial the accused testified that he broke into a restaurant but denied any intention to steal from the restaurant. The trial judge disbelieved the accused's statement but held that the accused's testimony constituted evidence to rebut the presumption of intent pursuant to s. 306(2) of the Criminal Code. The trial judge acquitted the accused. The Crown appealed to the British Columbia Court of Appeal.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the acquittal of the accused. The Crown appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of the British Columbia courts and convicted the accused. The Supreme Court of Canada held that because the accused's story was disbelieved by the trial judge there was no evidence to rebut the presumption of entry with intent (see paragraph 14).

Criminal Law - Topic 1802

Offences against property - Charge of breaking and entering with intent to commit an indictable offence therein - Presumption of intent to commit an indictable offence therein - Criminal Code, s. 306(2)(b) - The accused testified that he broke into a restaurant but denied any intention to steal from the restaurant - The trial judge disbelieved the accused's statement that he had no intention to steal - The Supreme Court of Canada convicted the accused - The Supreme Court of Canada held that where the accused's story is disbelieved there is no evidence before the court to rebut the presumption of entry with intent to commit an offence (see paragraph 14).

Criminal Law - Topic 5223

Evidence - Burden of proof - Burden on accused where the Crown proves a prima facie case - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that an accused can meet a prima facie case by raising a reasonable doubt - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that it is not necessary for an accused (when faced with a prima facie case) to establish his innocence (see paragraph 14).

Criminal Law - Topic 5215

Evidence - Burden of proof - General principles - The Supreme Court of Canada referred to three standards of proof in Canadian criminal law (see paragraph 10).

Evidence - Topic 100

Degree and standard of proof - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that it is important to avoid unnecessary complexities and subtleties in the law of evidence by undue emphasis on minor differences in the wording of statutes (see paragraph 11).

Words and Phrases

Evidence to the contrary - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the meaning of the phrase "evidence to the contrary" as found in s. 306(2)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34.

Words and Phrases

Prima facie evidence - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the meaning of the phrase "prima facie evidence" (see paragraph 5).

Cases Noticed:

Ungaro v. The King, [1950] S.C.R. 430, folld. [para. 1].

Tremblay v. The Queen, [1969] S.C.R. 431, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Newton, 8 N.R. 431; [1977] 1 S.C.R. 399, refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Spurge, [1961] 2 Q.B. 205, refd to. [para. 8].

Batary v. Attorney General of Saskatchewan, [1965] S.C.R. 465, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Marshall (1971), 1 C.C.C.(2d) 505, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Rivera, [1975] 2 W.W.R. 56, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. O'Connell (1950), 10 C.R. 367, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Vitale (1969), 7 C.R.N.S. 78, refd to. [para. 22].

Austin v. The Queen, [1968] S.C.R. 891, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Imrich (1977), 39 C.R.N.S. 75, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Campbell (1971), 14 C.R.N.S. 161, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Probert (1974), 13 C.C.C.(2d) 384, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Whitty (1977), 12 N. & P.E.I.R. 361; 25 A.P.R. 361, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Hipke, [1978] 4 W.W.R. 128, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Commissioner, [1958] 1 W.L.R. 851, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Hachey, Rideout and Rideout (1971), 2 N.B.R.(2d) 757; 1 C.C.C.(2d) 242, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Strain (1971), 2 C.C.C.(2d) 412, refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Cairns (1974), 14 C.C.C.(2d) 417, refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Watkins, [1976] 4 W.W.R. 198, refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Kalan (1978), 8 A.R. 415; 5 Alta. L.R.(2d) 312, refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Morse (1977), 3 B.C.L.R. 226, refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Noble (1977), 17 N.R. 555; 19 N.B.R.(2d) 417; 30 A.P.R. 417; 37 C.C.C.(2d) 193, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Deitz, [1978] 2 W.W.R. 38, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Bernardi (1974), 20 C.C.C.(2d) 523, refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Campbell (1974), 17 C.C.C.(2d) 320, refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Peterman, [1978] 2 W.W.R. 335, refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Bauckman, [1976] 4 W.W.R. 355, refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Beaulieu (1976), 29 C.C.C.(2d) 574, refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Black, [1977] 3 W.W.R. 185, refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Davis, [1977] 6 W.W.R. 13, refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Dygdala, 1 A.R. 359; [1977] 1 W.W.R. 104, refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Johnnie and Namox (1975), 30 C.R.N.S. 202, refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Pernfus, [1978] 2 W.W.R. 147, refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Sikora (1975), 22 C.C.C.(2d) 315, refd to. [para. 45].

R. ex rel. Webb v. Tarr, [1975] 2 W.W.R. 16, refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Westman (1973), 11 C.C.C.(2d) 355, refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Gaetz (1972), 8 C.C.C.(2d) 3, refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Falkenham (1974), 10 N.S.R.(2d) 665; 22 C.C.C(2d) 385, refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Achilles and Kamperogianis (1972), 6 C.C.C.(2d) 274, refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Ryckman (1976), 25 C.C.C.(2d) 294, refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Warnock, [1977] 1 W.W.R. 385, refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Oliver (1973), 9 C.C.C.(2d) 526, refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Di Serio (1975), 28 C.R.N.S. 256, refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Reeves (1978), 9 A.R. 149; 6 Alta. L.R. 90, refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Appleby, [1972] S.C.R. 303, refd to. [para. 47].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 306(2)(a) [para. 17].

Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. I-22, sect. 24(1) [para. 3].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Jowitt, Earl, Dictionary of English Law [para. 5].

Phipson on Evidence, 10th Ed., page 53 [para. 6].

Oxford English Dictionary [para. 29].

Salhany and Carter, Studies in Canadian Criminal Evidence (1972), ch. 3 [para. 30].

McWilliams, Canadian Criminal Evidence, (1974), page 401 [para. 47].

Counsel:

M.R.V. Storrow, for the appellant;

Peter Messner, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard by LASKIN, C.J.C., MARTLAND, RITCHIE, SPENCE, PIGEON, DICKSON, BEETZ, ESTEY and PRATTE, JJ. of the Supreme Court of Canada at Ottawa, Ontario on November 15, 1977.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered on October 17, 1978 and the following opinions were filed:

PIGEON, J. - see paragraphs 1 to 16.

ESTEY, J. - see paragraphs 17 to 50.

MARTLAND, RITCHIE, DICKSON, BEETZ and PRATTE, JJ. concurred with PIGEON, J.

LASKIN, C.J.C., and SPENCE, J. concurred with ESTEY, J.