R. v. Stevens, (1988) 86 N.R. 85 (SCC)

• Judge: Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Lamer, Wilson, Le Dain, La Forest and L'Heureux-Dubé, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: February 02, 1988
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1988), 86 N.R. 85 (SCC);41 CCC (3d) 193;28 OAC 243;86 NR 85;51 DLR (4th) 394;JE 88-850;[1988] 1 SCR 1153;1988 CanLII 44 (SCC);35 CRR 107;EYB 1988-67459;64 CR (3d) 297

R. v. Stevens (1988), 86 N.R. 85 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Glenn Brian Stevens, also known as Glenn Brian Villeneuve v. Her Majesty the Queen and the Attorney General of Alberta

(No. 17655)

Indexed As: R. v. Stevens

Supreme Court of Canada

Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Lamer, Wilson, Le Dain, La Forest and L'Heureux-Dubé, JJ.

June 30, 1988.

Summary:

Shortly before the Charter became effective the accused had sexual intercourse five times with a 13 year old girl. He was charged under s. 146(1) of the Criminal Code which made it an offence for a man to have sexual intercourse with a female under the age of 14 (other than his wife), "whether or not he believes that she is 14 years of age or more". His trial commenced after the Charter became effective in April 1982. At trial he moved to quash the information, arguing that the denial by s. 146(1), of a defence based on a mistake of fact concerning the girl's age, was contrary to s. 7 of the Charter (i.e. contrary to the principles of fundamental justice). The Ontario Provincial Court dismissed the motion to quash and the accused pleaded guilty. The accused was convicted and given a suspended sentence with two years' probation. The accused appealed the ruling that s. 146(1) was not contrary to s. 7.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a brief oral judgment reported (1983), 3 C.C.C.(3d) 198; 145 D.L.R.(3d) 563; 5 C.R.R. 139, dismissed the appeal. The accused appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, Wilson, Lamer and L'Heureux-Dubé, JJ., dissenting, dismissed the appeal. The majority, per Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, McIntyre, Le Dain and La Forest, JJ., held that s. 7 of the Charter was not applicable to s. 146(1) because to apply s. 7 in this case would give the section a retrospective effect. The majority held further that the words "whether or not he believes that she is 14 years of age or more" in s. 146 (1) define, at the time the offence is committed, one of the constituent elements of the offence, rather than to deny the accused, at the time of the trial, a defence which he might otherwise have had.

Wilson, Lamer and L'Heureux-Dubé, JJ., dissenting, would have allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial. The dissenters opined that s. 7 was applicable and that s. 146(1) violated s. 7 because it created an offence punishable by imprisonment which did not allow the accused as a minimum a due diligence defence. They opined further that this violation of s. 7 could not be justified under s. 1 of the Charter.

(Note that Estey, J., took no part in the judgment).

Civil Rights - Topic 768

Liberty - Offences - Absolute liability - Validity - Sexual intercourse with female under 14 - Shortly before the Charter became effective, the accused had sexual intercourse five times with a 13 year old girl - He was convicted under s. 146(1) of the Criminal Code which made such sexual activity an offence whether or not the accused knew the girl was under the age of 14 - The accused argued that the statutory denial of a defence based on mistake of fact respecting the girl's age was contrary to s. 7 of the Charter - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 7 could not be applied in this case, because to do so would give the section a retrospective effect - Three dissenting members of the court opined that s. 7 was applicable, that s. 146(1) violated s. 7 by removing the due diligence defence, and that the violation could not be justified by s. 1 of the Charter.

Civil Rights - Topic 8304

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Retrospectivity - Wilson, J., of the Supreme Court of Canada, in a dissenting judgment (Lamer and L'Heureux-Dubé, JJ., concurring), discussed the issue of retrospectivity in the application of the Charter - She discussed in particular whether s. 7 could be invoked at a post-Charter trial in relation to pre-Charter events and whether the interprétation of the Charter should be guided by the traditional rules on retrospectivity of statutes - See paragraphs 11 to 36.

Civil Rights - Topic 8304

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Retrospectivity - [See Civil Rights - Topic 768 above].

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law - The Criminal Code, s. 146(1) made it an offence for a man to have sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of 14, other than his wife, whether or not he knew the girl was under the age of 14 - Wilson, J., of the Supreme Court of Canada, in a dissenting judgment (Lamer and L'Heureux-Dubé, JJ., concurring), opined that s. 146(1) violated s. 7 of the Charter by removing the due diligence defence and that this violation could not be justified under s. 1 of the Charter.

Civil Rights - Topic 8406

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Criminal proceedings - Statutory negation of defences - [See Civil Rights - Topic 768 above].

Criminal Law - Topic 700

Sexual offences - Sexual intercourse with female under age 14 - [See Civil Rights - Topic 768 above].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. James, Kirsten, Rosenthal and Dzagic, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 669; 85 N.R. 1, consd. [paras. 1, 17, 18].

R. v. James (1986), 15 O.A.C. 319; 27 C.C.C.(3d) 1, consd. [paras. 1, 17].

R. v. Dubois, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 350; 62 N.R. 50; 66 A.R. 202; 48 C.R.(3d) 193; 22 C.C.C.(3d) 513; [1986] 1 W.W.R. 193; 41 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97; 18 C.R.R. 1; 23 D.L.R.(4th) 503, consd. [paras. 3, 22, 34].

Reference Re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266; [1986] 1 W.W.R. 481; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 48 C.R.(3d) 289; 69 B.C.L.R. 145; 36 M.V.R. 240; 18 C.R.R. 30; 24 D.L.R. (4th) 536, consd. [paras. 9, 40, 43].

R. v. Thorburn (1986), 26 C.C.C.(3d) 154 (B.C.C.A.), consd. [paras. 12, 13].

R. v. Dickson and Corman (1982), 3 C.C.C.(3d) 23; 145 D.L.R.(3d) 164, consd. [para. 13].

R. v. Lucas (1986), 14 O.A.C. 124; 27 C.C.C.(3d) 229 (Ont. C.A.), consd. [para. 14].

Restrictive Trade Practices Commission et al. v. Irvine et al., [1987] 1 S.C.R. 181; 74 N.R. 33, consd. [para. 15].

R. v. Videoflicks, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 713; 71 N.R. 161; 19 O.A.C. 239; 55 C.R.(3d) 193; 35 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 30 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 28 C.R.R. 1, consd. [para. 16].

R. v. Edwards Books and Art Ltd. - see R. v. Videoflicks.

Edwards Books and Art Ltd. v. R. - see R. v. Videoflicks.

R. v. Jack and Charlie, [1985] 2 S.C. R. 332; 62 N.R. 14, consd. [para. 19].

Downtown Oshawa Property Owners' Association et al. v. Regional Assessment Commissioner, Region Number 13 et al., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1030; 22 N.R. 152, consd. [para. 30].

Howard Smith Paper Mills Ltd. v. R., [1957] S.C.R. 403, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Antoine (1983), 5 C.C.C.(3d) 97, consd. [para. 36].

R. v. City of Sault Ste. Marie, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1299; 21 N.R. 295; 40 C.C.C.(2d) 353; 85 D.L.R.(3d) 161; 3 C.R.(3d) 30, consd. [paras. 37, 40, 50].

R. v. Pappajohn, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 120; 32 N.R. 104, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Vaillancourt, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 636; 81 N.R. 115; 10 Q.A.C. 161, consd. [para. 41].

R. v. Ferguson, [1987] 6 W.W.R. 481 (B.C.C.A.), consd. [paras. 43-50, 52].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335; 26 D.L.R. (4th) 200; 50 C.R.(3d) 1; 24 C.C.C. (3d) 321; 19 C.R.R. 308, refd to. [para. 44].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, sect. 1 [para. 43 et seq.]; sect. 2(a) [paras. 19, 20]; sect. 7 [para. 1 et seq.]; sect. 13 [para. 22].

Constitution Act, 1982, sect. 52(1) [para. 54].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 139(4), sect. 140, sect. 141 [para. 51]; sect. 146(1) [para. 1 et seq.].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Black, William, Charter of Rights - Application to Pre-Enactment Events, [1982] U.B.C.L. Rev. 59 (Charter Edition), pp. 65 [para. 28]; 66 [para. 31].

Boyle, Christine, Sexual Assault (1984), pp. 105 [para. 39]; 107, 108 [para. 49].

Côté, Pierre-André, Interprétation des lois (1982), p. 147 et seq. [para. 29 French version].

Côté, Pierre-André, The Interpretation of Legislation in Canada (1984), p. 135 et seq. [para. 29 English version].

Craies on Statute Law (7th Ed. 1971), p. 387 [para. 26].

Driedger, E.A., The Meaning and Effect of the Canadian Bill of Rights: A Draftsman's Viewpoint (1977), 9 Ott. L. Rev. 303, p. 307 [para. 33].

Maxwell on the Interprétation of Statutes (12th Ed. 1969), pp. 215 [para. 26]; 218 [para. 32]; 222 [para. 27].

Mahoney, Richard, The Presumption of Innocence: A New Era (1988), 67 Can. Bar Rev. 1, p. 5 [para. 3].

Williams, Glanville Llewelyn, Criminal Law: The General Part (2nd Ed. 1961), pp. 241, 521 [para. 45].

Counsel:

Alan Gold, for the appellant;

Bruce Duncan, for the respondent;

Jack Watson, for the intervener the Attorney General for Alberta.

Solicitors of Record:

Gold & Fuerst, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant;

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

Attorney General for Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, for the intervener.

This appeal was heard on February 2, 1988, before Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Lamer, Wilson, Le Dain, La Forest and L'Heureux-Dubé, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official languages on June 30, 1988, including the following opinions:

Le Dain, J. (Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, McIntyre and La Forest, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 4;

Wilson, J., dissenting (Lamer and L'Heureux-Dubé, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 5 to 58.

Estey, J., did not take part in the judgment.