R. v. Sellars, (1980) 32 N.R. 70 (SCC)
| Judge | Martland, Ritchie, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz, Estey and Chouinard, JJ. |
| Court | Supreme Court (Canada) |
| Case Date | February 07, 1980 |
| Jurisdiction | Canada (Federal) |
| Citations | (1980), 32 N.R. 70 (SCC);JE 80-122;[1980] SCJ No 9 (QL);20 CR (3d) 381;[1980] CarswellQue 34;32 NR 70;110 DLR (3d) 629;4 WCB 421;1980 CanLII 166 (SCC);52 CCC (2d) 345;[1980] 1 SCR 527 |
R. v. Sellars (1980), 32 N.R. 70 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
R. v. Sellars
Indexed As: R. v. Sellars
Supreme Court of Canada
Martland, Ritchie, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz, Estey and Chouinard, JJ.
February 7, 1980.
Summary:
This case arose out of a charge of murder. The accused was convicted by a judge and jury. The accused appealed to the Quebec Court of Appeal.
The Quebec Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The accused appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.
Criminal Law - Topic 5512
Evidence - Testimony of accomplices - Danger of reliance on testimony of an accomplice - What constitutes an accomplice - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that an accessory after the fact is an accomplice for the purpose of warning a jury of the danger of reliance on the testimony of an accomplice.
Criminal Law - Topic 4354
Procedure - Charge or directions to a jury - Directions regarding evidence of accomplices - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that an accessory after the fact is an accomplice for the purpose of warning a jury of the danger of reliance on the testimony of an accomplice.
Criminal Law - Topic 5511
Evidence - Testimony of accomplices - Caution to jury of danger of reliance on testimony of accomplice - What constitutes a caution - The Supreme Court of Canada referred to portions of a jury charge which constituted a caution or a warning to a jury (see paragraphs 19 to 22).
Criminal Law - Topic 57
General principles - Protection against self incrimination - Unfavourable inference from accused's failure to testify - The Supreme Court of Canada referred to the accused's failure to testify and explain inculpatory facts and considered such a failure in deciding whether to apply s. 613(1)(b) of the Criminal Code (see paragraphs 18, 23 and 24).
Cases Noticed:
Paradis v. R., 13 N.R. 251; [1978] 1 S.C.R. 264, refd to. [paras. 3 and 28].
Provincial Secretary of Prince Edward Island v. Egan, [1941] S.C.R. 396, refd to. [paras. 5 and 30].
Schwartz v. The Queen, 8 N.R. 585; [1977] 1 S.C.R. 673, refd to. [paras. 6 and 31].
Switzman v. Elbling, [1957] S.C.R. 285, refd to. [paras. 7 and 32].
R. v. Zelensky, 21 N.R. 372; [1978] 2 S.C.R. 940, refd to. [paras. 7 and 32].
Attorney General of Quebec v. Cohen, 27 N.R. 344, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 305, refd to. [paras. 8 and 33].
Depagie and The Queen, Re (1977), 1 A.R. 602; 32 C.C.C.(2d) 89, refd to. [paras. 9 and 34].
Ottawa v. Nepean Township et al., [1943] 3 D.L.R. 802, refd to. [paras. 10 and 35].
Avon v. R., [1971] S.C.R. 650, refd to. [paras. 24 and 49].
Statutes Noticed:
Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 613(1)(b) [paras. 15 and 40].
Counsel:
Jean R. Salois, for the appellant;
Ronald Schachter, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard by MARTLAND, RITCHIE, PIGEON, DICKSON, BEETZ, ESTEY and CHOUINARD, JJ. of the Supreme Court of Canada at Ottawa, Ontario on December 5, 1979.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered by CHOUINARD, J. on February 7, 1980 - see paragraphs 1 to 25 (English language judgment) and paragraphs 26 to 50 (French language judgment).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R. v. Brighteyes (P.J.), (1997) 199 A.R. 161 (QB)
...Matheson (R.N.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 328; 172 N.R. 108; 123 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 271; 382 A.P.R. 271, refd to. [para. 141]. R. v. Sellars, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 527; 32 N.R. 70, refd to. [para. Statutes Noticed: Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1 [para. 98]; sect. 7 [para. 18]; se......
-
Proulx v. Québec (Procureur général), (2001) 276 N.R. 201 (SCC)
...Telecommunications v. Alberta Government Telephones and CRTC, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 225; 98 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 86]. R. v. Sellars, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 527; 32 N.R. 70; 110 D.L.R.(3d) 629; 52 C.C.C.(2d) 345; 20 C.R.(3d) 381, consd. [para. 94]. Martel Building Ltd. v. Canada, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 860......
-
R. v. Henry (D.B.) et al., (2005) 376 A.R. 1 (SCC)
...A.C. 495 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 53]. R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335, refd to. [para. 53]. R. v. Sellars, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 527; 32 N.R. 70, refd to. [para. Haldimand-Norfolk Regional Health Unit v. Ontario Nurses' Association (1981), 120 D.L.R.(3d) 101 (Ont. C.A.......
-
R. v. Henry (D.B.) et al., (2005) 342 N.R. 259 (SCC)
...A.C. 495 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 53]. R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335, refd to. [para. 53]. R. v. Sellars, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 527; 32 N.R. 70, refd to. [para. Haldimand-Norfolk Regional Health Unit v. Ontario Nurses' Association (1981), 120 D.L.R.(3d) 101 (Ont. C.A.......
-
R. v. Brighteyes (P.J.), (1997) 199 A.R. 161 (QB)
...Matheson (R.N.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 328; 172 N.R. 108; 123 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 271; 382 A.P.R. 271, refd to. [para. 141]. R. v. Sellars, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 527; 32 N.R. 70, refd to. [para. Statutes Noticed: Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1 [para. 98]; sect. 7 [para. 18]; se......
-
Newfoundland Association of Provincial Court Judges et al. v. Newfoundland, (2000) 192 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 183 (NFCA)
...Associations et al. v. Ontario (1999), 119 O.A.C. 107; 171 D.L.R.(4th) 337 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 86, footnote 6]. R. v. Sellars, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 527; 32 N.R. 70, refd to. [paras. 87, 332, footnote Cassell & Co. v. Broome, [1972] A.C. 1027 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 87, footnote 7]. S......
-
R. v. McKinnon (N.L.) et al.,
...v. Arp (B.), [1998] 3 S.C.R. 339; 232 N.R. 317; 114 B.C.A.C. 1; 186 W.A.C. 1; 129 C.C.C.(3d) 321, refd to. [para. 115]. R. v. Sellars, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 527; 32 N.R. 70; 52 C.C.C.(2d) 345, refd to. [para. 118]. R. v. Kehler (R.A.), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 328; 317 N.R. 30; 346 A.R. 29; 320 W.A.C. 29;......
-
Chippewas of Sarnia Band v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., (1999) 101 O.T.C. 1 (SC)
...288]. United States v. Santa Fe Pacific R. Co. (1941), 314 U.S. 339 (U.S.S.C.), refd to. [para. 565, footnote 290]. R. v. Sellars, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 527; 32 N.R. 70; 52 C.C.C.(2d) 345, folld. [para. 568, footnote R. v. Ireland (1990), 1 O.R.(3d) 577 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 569, footnote 296].......
-
Damages
...CA), Vancise JA. On the general issue of the respect to be accorded considered dicta of the Supreme Court of Canada, see R v Sellars , [1980] 1 SCR 527 at 529–30, Chouinard J. 40 See Property Law Act , above note 37. 41 Law of Property Act 1989 (UK), 1989, c 34, s 3. 42 See also Vendors and......
-
TSILHQOT'IN NATION AND INTERJURISDICTIONAL IMMUNITY: WHEN ARE JUDICIAL DECISIONS INVOLVING INDIGENOUS CLAIMS RETROACTIVE?
...but are certainly not 'binding' in the sense the Sellars principle in its most exaggerated form would have it [in Sellars v The Queen, [1980] 1 SCR 527 at 529, Chouinard J opined that the Supreme Court's obiter dicta are binding]. The objective of the exercise is to promote certainty in the......
-
Marshall and Bernard: treaty rights and a treaty table.
...paras. 18-19. (10) Ibid. at para. 20. (11) Ibid. at para. 24. (12) Ibid. at para. 25. (13) Ibid. at para. 33. (14) See R. v. Sellars, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 527 wherein Chouinard J. quoted with approval Robertson C.J.O. in Ottawa v. Nepean Township et al., [ 1943] 3 D.L.R. 802 at 804: "What was th......
-
THE SIGNAL AND THE NOISE IN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW.
...rooted in the facts, the legal point decided by this Court may be as narrow as the jury instruction at issue in [Sellars v The Queen, [1980] 1 SCR 527] or as broad as the Oakes test. All obiter do not have, and are not intended to have, the same weight. The weight decreases as one moves fro......