R. v. Salituro, (1991) 131 N.R. 161 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin and Iacobucci, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: June 26, 1991
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1991), 131 N.R. 161 (SCC);8 CRR (2d) 173;[1991] 3 SCR 654;1991 CanLII 17 (SCC);[1991] SCJ No 97 (QL);14 WCB (2d) 407;131 NR 161;50 OAC 125;9 CR (4th) 324;68 CCC (3d) 289;JE 92-16;[1991] ACS no 97

R. v. Salituro (1991), 131 N.R. 161 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Pasquale Salituro (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)

(No. 22049)

Indexed As: R. v. Salituro

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., Gonthier, Cory,

McLachlin and Iacobucci, JJ.

November 28, 1991.

Summary:

A husband, the accused, forged his wife's signature on a cheque that was payable jointly to her and to him, cashed it, and pocketed the proceeds. The Ontario Provin­cial Court, per BeGora, P.C.J., convicted the accused of uttering a forged document. The accused appealed, arguing that the trial judge erred in admitting the evidence of the wife because the wife, from whom he was sepa­rated, was not a competent witness against him.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, Carthy, J.A., dissenting, in a decision reported 38 O.A.C. 241, dismissed the conviction appeal. The court held that the wife was competent to testify and modified the common law rule respecting spousal testimony, by holding that spouses who are separated with no reason­able possibility of reconciliation are compe­tent to testify against each other. The trial judge therefore properly admitted the wife's evidence. The accused appealed again.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.

Courts - Topic 28

Stare decisis - Authority of judicial deci­sions - The common law - Modification or extension of common law rule - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the power of judges to change the common law - See paragraphs 26 to 37 - The court stated, inter alia, that "where the principles underlying a common law rule are out of step with the values enshrined in the Charter, the courts should scrutinize the rule closely. If it is possible to change the common law rule so as to make it consis­tent with Charter values, without upsetting the proper balance between judicial and legislative action ... then the rule ought to be changed" - See paragraph 49.

Courts - Topic 28

Stare decisis - Authority of judicial deci­sions - The common law - Modification or extension of common law rule - [See first Evidence - Topic 5548 ].

Evidence - Topic 5548

Witnesses - Competency and compell- ability - Competency - Separated spouses - The Ontario Court of Appeal reviewed the common law rule that spouses are not competent to testify against each other - The court modified the rule in holding that it was not appli­cable where spouses were separated with no reasonable possibility of reconciliation - The Supreme Court of Canada also reviewed the rule and affirmed the modifi­cation of the rule by the Court of Appeal.

Evidence - Topic 5548

Witnesses - Competency and compell- ability - Competency - Separated spouses - A husband, who was separated from his wife, received a cheque from the sale of their matrimonial home made out to him­self and his wife jointly - He forged his wife's signature, cashed the cheque and pocketed the proceeds - He was convicted of uttering a forged document primarily because of the testimony of his wife - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that the husband was properly convicted because the wife was competent to testify against him where the spouses were separated with no reasonable possibility of reconciliation.

Cases Noticed:

Watkins v. Olafson et al., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 750; 100 N.R. 161; 61 Man.R.(2d) 81; 61 D.L.R.(4th) 577, refd to. [paras. 9, 17, 29, 32-34, 37].

R. v. Bailey (1983), 4 C.C.C.(3d) 21 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [paras. 9, 14, 21, 40, 53].

R. v. Marchand (1980), 39 N.S.R.(2d) 700; 71 A.P.R. 700; 55 C.C.C.(2d) 77 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 9, 14, 21, 50, 53].

R. v. Czipps (1979), 48 C.C.C.(2d) 166 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [paras. 13, 50].

R. v. Sillars (1978), 45 C.C.C.(2d) 283 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [paras. 13, 40].

R. v. MacPherson (1980), 36 N.S.R.(2d) 674; 64 A.P.R. 674; 52 C.C.C.(2d) 547 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. McNamara (1979), 48 C.C.C.(2d) 201 (Ont. Co. Ct.), refd to. [paras. 13, 17].

R. v. Algar, [1954] 1 Q.B. 279, refd to. [paras. 14, 53].

Stuart v. Bank of Montreal (1909), 41 S.C.R. 516, refd to. [para. 27].

Reference Re Farm Products Marketing Act, [1957] S.C.R. 198, refd to. [para. 27].

Farm Products Marketing Act, Reference Re - see Reference Re Farm Products Marketing Act.

R. v. Bell, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 212; 26 N.R. 457, refd to. [para. 27].

Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development v. Ranville, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 518; 44 N.R. 616, refd to. [para. 27].

Viro v. The Queen (1978), 141 C.L.R. 88 (Aust. H.C.), refd to. [para. 28].

Ares v. Venner, [1970] S.C.R. 608, refd to. [paras. 29, 30, 35].

R. v. Khan, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 531; 113 N.R. 53; 41 O.A.C. 353, refd to. [paras. 29, 35].

R. v. Seaboyer and Gayme (1991), 128 N.R. 81; 48 O.A.C. 81 (S.C.C.), refd to. [paras. 29, 36].

Myers v. Director of Public Prosecutions, [1965] A.C. 1001, refd to. [paras. 30, 31].

Andrews v. Grand and Toy (Alberta) Ltd., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 229; 19 N.R. 50; 8 A.R. 182; [1978] 1 W.W.R. 557; 83 D.L.R.(3d) 452; 3 C.C.L.T. 225, refd to. [para. 34].

Lord Audley's Case (1631), Hutt. 115; 123 E.R. 1140, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Big M Drug Mart, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; [1985] 3 W.W.R. 481; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 321; 37 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97; 85 C.L.L.C. 14,203; 13 C.R.R. 64, refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Morgentaler, Smoling and Scott, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30; 82 N.R. 1; 26 O.A.C. 1; 44 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 45].

Dolphin Delivery Ltd. v. Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 580, Peterson and Alexander, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 573; 71 N.R. 83; 33 D.L.R.(4th) 174; [1987] 1 W.W.R. 577, refd to. [para. 48].

Cloutier v. Langlois and Bédard, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 158; 105 N.R. 241; 30 Q.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. McGinty (1986), 1 Y.R. 27; 27 C.C.C.(3d) 36 (Yuk. C.A.), refd to. [paras. 50, 52].

R. v. Lonsdale (1973), 15 C.C.C.(2d) 201 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 50].

Trammel v. United States (1980), 445 U.S. 40, refd to. [para. 50].

Statutes Noticed:

Canada Evidence Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-5, sect. 4 [para. 4 et seq].

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, generally [paras. 38, 44, 45, 48, 49].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 329, sect. 368 [para. 4]; sect. 691(1)(a) [para. 3].

Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. D-8, sect. 7, sect. 8 [para. 22].

Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985 (2nd Supp.), c. 3, sect. 10 [para. 58].

Evidence Act (Can.), 1985 - see Canada Evidence Act.

Family Law Act, S.O. 1986, c. 4, preamble [para. 47].

Matrimonial Causes Act (U.K.), 20 & 21 Vict., c. 85, generally [para. 46].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Bissett-Johnson, Alastair and David C. Day, The New Divorce Law: A Com­mentary on the Divorce Act, 1985 (1986), generally [para. 46].

Blackstone, Sir William, Commentaries on the Laws of England (4th Ed. 1770), Book One, pp. 69 [para. 26]; 442 [para. 39].

Canada, Law Reform Commission, Law of Evidence Project, Evidence, Study Paper 1, Competence and Compellability (1972), pp. 5 [para. 43]; 6 [paras. 46, 52]; 7 [para. 52].

Coke, Sir Edward, The First Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England (19th Ed. 1832), 1 Inst. 6b [para. 39].

McCormick on Evidence (3rd Ed. 1984), p. 354 [para. 12].

Practice Statement (Judicial Precedent), [1966] 1 W.L.R. 1234, p. 1234 [para. 27].

Wigmore, John Henry, Evidence in Trials at Common Law (1961), vol. 8, pp. 213 [para. 42]; 217, s. 2228 [para. 40].

Counsel:

Marc Rosenberg, for the appellant;

Jamie C. Klukach, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Greenspan, Rosenberg and Buhr, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant;

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

This appeal was heard on June 26, 1991, before Lamer, C.J.C., Gonthier, Cory, Mc­Lachlin and Iacobucci, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision of the court was delivered in both official languages by Iacobucci, J., on November 28, 1991.