R. v. Ruzic (M.), (1998) 112 O.A.C. 201 (CA)

• Judge: McMurtry, C.J.O., Catzman and Laskin, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: June 17, 1998
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1998), 112 O.A.C. 201 (CA)

R. v. Ruzic (M.) (1998), 112 O.A.C. 201 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1998] O.A.C. TBEd. SE.010

Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. Marijana Ruzic (respondent)

(C20580)

Indexed As: R. v. Ruzic (M.)

Ontario Court of Appeal

McMurtry, C.J.O., Catzman and Laskin, JJ.A.

August 28, 1998.

Summary:

The accused was charged with unlawfully importing 2 kilograms of heroin into Canada contrary to s. 5(1) of the Narcotic Control Act, and of possession and use of a false passport contrary to s. 368 of the Criminal Code. The accused admitting importing the heroin and using a false passport but claimed that she had done so under duress. She said that a man had threatened to harm or kill her mother in Serbia unless she brought the heroin to Canada. She also said that the Serbian police could not protect her mother. Her claim of duress did not meet the "im­mediacy" or "presence" requirements of s. 17 of the Criminal Code. Therefore, during her trial she asked for a declaration that s. 17 of the Code violated s. 7 of the Charter and was of no force or effect. The trial judge ruled that s. 17 of the Code violated s. 7 of the Charter and was not saved by s. 1. The trial judge therefore declined to charge the jury on the statutory defence. Instead he charged the jury on the common law defence of duress. The jury acquitted the accused on both charges. The Crown appealed the ac­quittal on the charge of importing heroin. The Crown submitted that the trial judge erred in ruling that s. 17 was unconstitu­tional and in removing the statutory defence of duress from the jury. In the alternative, the Crown argued that the trial judge misdi­rected the jury on the elements of the com­mon law defence of duress.

The Ontario Court of Appeal agreed that s. 17 of the Criminal Code violated s. 7 of the Charter and was not saved by s. 1. The court declared s. 17 to be of no force or effect to the extent that it prevented an accused from relying on the common law defence of duress preserved by s. 8(3) of the Code. Further, the court held that there was no error in the trial judge's charge to the jury on the common law of duress. Accordingly, the court dismissed the Crown's appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 3157.3

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Procedure contrary to fundamental justice - The statutory defence of duress (Criminal Code, s. 17) was available only where the person acted on threats of immediate death or bodily harm from a person who was present when the offence was committed - Further, the defence was inapplicable to several of­fences - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that s. 17 violated s. 7 of the Charter - The immediacy and presence restrictions in s. 17 permitted convictions for morally in­voluntary conduct and therefore contra­vened the principles of fundamental justice - Further, the immediacy and presence restrictions infringed s. 7 because they denied the defence arbitrarily and unfairly - The violation of s. 7 could not be jus­tified under s. 1 of the Charter - The court declared s. 17 of no force or effect to the extent that it prevented an accused from relying on the common law defence of duress.

Civil Rights - Topic 8304

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - General - The Ontario Court of Appeal discussed the propriety of a constitutional review of a statutory defence under the Charter - In particular, the court held that the statutory defence of duress in s. 17 of the Criminal Code was open to Charter review - See paragraphs 56 to 70.

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law (Charter, s. 1) - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3157.3 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8380.2

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Declar­ation of statute invalidity - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3157.3 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8380.18

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Reading down - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3157.3 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8547

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Particular words and phrases - Principles of fundamental justice - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3157.3 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8547

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Particular words and phrases - Principles of fundamental justice - The accused was charged with unlaw­fully importing heroin - She claimed to have done so under duress - Her claim of duress did not meet the "immediacy" or "pres­ence" requirements of s. 17 of the Criminal Code - The accused argued that s. 17 violated s. 7 of the Charter - The trial judge agreed and therefore declined to charge the jury on the statutory defence but charged the jury on the common law defence of duress - The accused was ac­quitted - The Crown appealed - The On­tario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - The court agreed that s. 17 violated s. 7 of the Charter and was not saved by s. 1 - The court declared s. 17 to be of no force or effect to the extent that it pre­vented reliance on the common law defence of duress - Further, the court held that there was no error in the trial judge's charge to the jury on the common law of duress.

Criminal Law - Topic 202

General principles - Common law de­fences - Duress - [See second Civil Rights - Topic 8547 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 226

General principles - Statutory defences or exceptions - Compulsion (duress) - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3157.3 and second Civil Rights - Topic 8547 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4357

Procedure - Jury charge - Directions regarding defences and theory of the defence - Duress - [See second Civil Rights - Topic 8547 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Langlois (S.) (1993), 54 Q.A.C. 87; 80 C.C.C. (3d) 28 (C.A.), agreed with. [para. 32].

R. v. Parris (1992), 11 C.R.R.(2d) 376 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 32].

Director of Public Prosecutions v. Lynch, [1975] A.C. 653 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Perka, Nelson, Hines and Johnson, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 232; 55 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Hibbert (L.), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 973; 184 N.R. 165; 84 O.A.C. 161; 99 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Carker (No. 2), [1967] 2 C.C.C. 190 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. Paquette, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 189; 11 N.R. 451, refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. Curran (1977), 7 A.R. 295; 38 C.C.C.(2d) 151 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Hudson, [1971] 2 Q.B. 202 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. Morrison (1980), 54 C.C.C.(2d) 447 (Ont. Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. Mena (1987), 20 O.A.C. 50; 34 C.C.C. (3d) 304 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. Salituro, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 654; 131 N.R. 161; 50 O.A.C. 125, refd to. [para. 57, footnote 2].

R. v. Daviault (H.) (1994), 173 N.R. 1; 93 C.C.C.(3d) 21 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 57, footnote 2].

Reference Re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 59].

R. v. Vaillancourt, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 69; 35 N.R. 597; 39 C.C.C.(3d) 118, refd to. [para. 59].

R. v. Martineau, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 633; 112 N.R. 83; 109 A.R. 321; 58 C.C.C.(3d) 353, refd to. [para. 59].

R. v. DeSousa, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 944; 142 N.R. 1; 56 O.A.C. 109; 76 C.C.C.(3d) 124, refd to. [para. 59].

R. v. Holmes, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 914; 85 N.R. 21; 27 O.A.C. 321; 41 C.C.C.(3d) 497, refd to. [para. 60].

R. v. Cameron (J.S.) (1992), 55 O.A.C. 234; 71 C.C.C.(3d) 272 (C.A.), dist. [para. 62].

R. v. Finta, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 701; 165 N.R. 1; 70 O.A.C. 241; 88 C.C.C.(3d) 417, refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Morgentaler, Smoling and Scott, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30; 82 N.R. 1; 26 O.A.C. 1; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 449, refd to. [para. 66].

Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General) et al., [1993] 3 S.C.R. 519; 158 N.R. 1; 34 B.C.A.C. 1; 56 W.A.C. 1; 85 C.C.C.(3d) 15, refd to. [para. 66].

R. v. Whyte, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 3; 86 N.R. 328; 42 C.C.C.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 68].

R. v. Chaulk and Morrissette, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1303; 119 N.R. 161; 69 Man.R.(2d) 161; 62 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 69].

R. v. Sault Ste. Marie (City), [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1299; 21 N.R. 295, refd to. [para. 73].

R. v. Nelson (B.G.) (1994), 92 Man.R.(2d) 259; 61 W.A.C. 259 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 75, footnote 3].

R. v. Seaboyer and Gayme, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 577; 128 N.R. 81; 48 O.A.C. 81; 66 C.C.C.(3d) 321, refd to. [para. 85].

R. v. Lavallee, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 852; 108 N.R. 321; 67 Man.R.(2d) 1; 55 C.C.C.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 88].

R. v. Howe, [1987] 1 A.C. 417 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 88].

R. v. Heywood (R.L.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 761; 174 N.R. 81; 50 B.C.A.C. 161; 82 W.A.C. 161; 94 C.C.C.(3d) 481 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 97].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1 [para. 96]; sect. 7 [para. 71].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 8(3) [para. 33]; sect. 17 [para. 45].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Grant, The Law of Homicide (1994), pp. 4-700, 4-72 [para. 69].

Roach, Kent, Criminal Law (1996) p. 188 [para. 53].

Robinson, Criminal Law Defences, vol. 2 (1984), p. 358 [para. 93].

Rosenthal, Duress in the Criminal Law (1990), 32 C.L.Q. 199, pp. 200 to 202 [para. 86].

Shaffer, Martha, Scrutinizing Duress: The Constitutional Validity of Section 17 of the Criminal Code (1998), 40 C.L.Q. 444, pp. 454 [para. 78]; 457 [para. 81]; 458 [paras. 81, 82]; 461 [para. 87].

Stuart, Canadian Criminal Law (3rd Ed. 1995), pp. 427, 428 [para. 45]; 430, 431 [para. 48].

Williams, Glanville, Criminal Law, The General Part (2nd Ed. 1961), p. 733 [para. 80].

Counsel:

Croft Michaelson, for the appellant;

Frank Addario, Leslie Pringle and Jonathan Dawe, for the respondent;

Gary Trotter, for the intervenor, the Attor­ney General of Ontario.

This appeal was heard on June 17, 1998, before McMurtry, C.J.O., Catzman and Laskin, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The following decision of the court was delivered by Laskin, J.A., and was released on August 28, 1998, followed by an addendum on November 13, 1998.