R. v. Schuldt, (1985) 38 Man.R.(2d) 257 (SCC)

• Judge: Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer and Wilson, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: December 17, 1985
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1985), 38 Man.R.(2d) 257 (SCC)

R. v. Schuldt (1985), 38 Man.R.(2d) 257 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

R. v. Schuldt

Indexed As: R. v. Schuldt

Supreme Court of Canada

Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer and Wilson, JJ.

December 17, 1985.

Summary:

An accused was charged with attempted break and enter with intent to commit an indictable offence. The trial judge acquitted the accused, because he had a reasonable doubt that the accused had the requisite intention. The Crown appealed.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal, Huband, J.A., dissenting, in a judgment reported (1983), 23 Man.R.(2d) 75, allowed the appeal, entered a conviction and remitted the matter for sentencing. The accused appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, set aside the appeal court's decision and restored the acquittal. The court held that the trial judge's finding regarding the accused's intention, whether right or wrong, was a question of fact, not a question of law, and therefore the Crown had no right to appeal the acquittal.

Criminal Law - Topic 4860

Appeals - Indictable offences - Grounds of appeal - Question of law - A trial judge acquitted an accused of attempted break and enter with intent, because he had a reasonable doubt that the accused had the requisite intent - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the finding as regards intention was a finding of fact, and therefore not appealable by the Crown.

Evidence - Topic 8

Question of fact - What constitutes - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "a finding as regards intention is a finding of fact" - The court added that the total absence of a foundation for a finding of fact was an error of law - However, when dealing with an acquittal the court stated that "absent a shifting of the burden of proof upon the accused there is always some evidence upon which to make a finding of fact favorable to the accused, and such a finding, if in error, is an error of fact. But when the burden of proof has been shifted (as is the case for proof of intent when a person is found in a place which he or she has broken into), it can be said, absent any evidence to the contrary, that there is no evidence upon which a reasonable doubt could exist as regards the intent of the accused, and an appeal against the ensuing acquittal raises a question of law alone" - See paragraphs 16, 36.

Evidence - Topic 9

Question of law - What constitutes - The accused was acquitted of attempted break and enter with intent, because the trial judge had a reasonable doubt that the accused had the requisite intent - The Manitoba Court of Appeal held that once it was conceded that the accused's presence at the scene was not for an innocent purpose, it was a misapplication of the doctrine of reasonable doubt for the trial judge to have entertained any doubt on the issue of intent and this amounted to an appealable error of law - The Supreme Court of Canada reversed the court of appeal, holding that the trial judge's finding constituted a non-appealable finding of fact.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Johnson (1973), 11 C.C.C.(2d) 101, refd to. [para. 8].

St. Jean v. The Queen (1975), 28 C.R.N.S. 1 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

Lampard v. The Queen, [1969] S.C.R. 373, consd. [para. 14].

Wild v. The Queen, [1971] S.C.R. 101, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Lemire, [1965] S.C.R. 174; 45 C.R. 16; 51 D.L.R.(2d) 312; [1964] 4 C.C.C. 11, consd. [para. 19].

Belyea v. The King, [1932] S.C.R. 279, consd. [para. 22].

Sunbeam Corporation (Canada) Ltd. v. The Queen, [1969] S.C.R. 221, consd. [para. 27].

Edwards (Inspector of Taxes) v. Bairstow, [1956] A.C. 14, refd to. [para. 34].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 21 [para. 9]; sect. 24 [para. 7]; sect. 306(2)(a) [para. 6]; sect. 605(1)(a) [para. 12].

Counsel:

Waldy Derksen, for the appellant;

Donald Melynk, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on February 20, 1985, before Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer and Wilson, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On December 17, 1985, Lamer, J., delivered the following judgment for the Supreme Court of Canada.