R. v. Roberge, (1983) 46 N.R. 573 (SCC)

• Judge: Ritchie, Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer and Wilson, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: March 24, 1983
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1983), 46 N.R. 573 (SCC);147 DLR (3d) 493;1983 CanLII 120 (SCC);33 CR (3d) 289;[1983] 1 SCR 312;4 CCC (3d) 304;[1983] SCJ No 25 (QL);46 NR 573

R. v. Roberge (1983), 46 N.R. 573 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Roberge

Indexed As: R. v. Roberge

Supreme Court of Canada

Ritchie, Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer and Wilson, JJ.

March 24, 1983.

Summary:

The accused Quebec police officer saw a New Brunswick taxi driver driving what he believed to be dangerously in Quebec. The accused pursued the taxi driver over the interprovincial bridge into the city of Campbellton, N.B. The driver escaped after a high speed chase through Campbellton, in which the accused fired shots at the taxi. The accused was charged with careless use of a firearm and was convicted by the New Brunswick Provincial Court. The accused appealed. The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, in a judgment reported 31 N.B.R.(2d) 668; 75 A.P.R. 668, allowed the appeal and acquitted the accused. The Crown appealed. The New Brunswick Court of Appeal in a judgment reported 35 N.B.R.(2d) 23; 88 A.P.R. 23, allowed the appeal and restored the accused's conviction. The accused appealed. The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and acquitted the accused. The court held that, where the accused had reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the taxi driver committed the offence of driving dangerously, he had the right to arrest the taxi driver without warrant and pursue him into another jurisdiction to do so. The court affirmed that the accused did not use excessive force in trying to make the arrest and was not guilty of careless use of a firearm.

Criminal Law - Topic 1437

Firearms - Careless use of firearm - Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, s. 84 - Believing that the driver of a vehicle had just committed the offence of dangerous driving, a Quebec policeman pursued the vehicle to New Brunswick - After a high speed chase in Campbellton, the policeman fired three shots at the rear of the vehicle, but the driver, who could have been identified later, temporarily escaped - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the policeman was not guilty of the careless use of a firearm.

Criminal Law - Topic 7603

Summary conviction proceedings - Appeal to court of appeal - Question of law - What constitutes - Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, s. 771(1) - The Supreme Court of Canada held that an erroneous ruling by a trial judge that a police officer could not arrest, without warrant, a motorist he was pursuing was an error of law - See paragraphs 24 to 29.

Police - Topic 3065

Powers - Arrest - Use of excessive force - What constitutes excessive force - A police officer, who reasonably believed that a driver had just committed the offence of dangerous driving, pursued the driver at high speed in a city, firing three shots at the rear of the driver's car, but not at the driver himself - The driver escaped, but was identified - The Supreme Court of Canada reversed the police officer's conviction for the careless use of a firearm and affirmed that he did not use excessive force - See paragraph 48.

Police - Topic 3069

Powers - Arrest - Arrest without warrant - A person committing a criminal offence - Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, s. 450(1)(b) - The Supreme Court of Canada held that a police officer may arrest without warrant a person whom he believes on reasonable and probable grounds is committing a criminal offence - See paragraphs 25 to 28.

Police - Topic 3072

Powers - Arrest - Arrest without warrant - Territorial jurisdiction - The Supreme Court of Canada held that a police officer who is justifiably attempting to arrest without warrant a person he believes on a reasonable and probable grounds is committing a criminal offence, may pursue the person into another province to make the arrest - See paragraphs 39 to 47.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Biron, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 56; 4 N.R. 45, appld. [para. 25].

Attorney General for Saskatchewan v. Pritchard (1961), 130 C.C.C. 61; 35 C.R. 150; 34 W.W.R.(N.S.) 458, appld. [para. 25].

Wiltshire v. Barrett, [1965] 2 All E.R. 271, consd. [para. 28].

R. v. Shyffer (1910), 17 C.C.C. 191, consd. [para. 40].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 25 [para. 12]; sect. 84, sect. 2 [para. 8]; sect. 223(4) [para. 11]; sect. 449(1)(3) [para. 10]; sect. 450(1) [para. 9].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Lagarde, Traité de Droit Pénal, p. 1065 [para. 14].

Stuart, Don, Canadian Criminal Law (1982), pp. 381-382 [paras. 30, 31].

Counsel:

J. Roger McIntyre, for the appellant;

Paul Theriault, for the respondent.

This case was heard on May 10, 1982, at Ottawa, Ontario, before RITCHIE, BEETZ, ESTEY, McINTYRE, CHOUINARD, LAMER and WILSON, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On March 24, 1983, LAMER, J., delivered the following judgment for the Supreme Court of Canada: