R. v. Stone (B.T.), (1999) 239 N.R. 201 (SCC)

• Judge: Bastarache and Binnie, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: May 27, 1999
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1999), 239 N.R. 201 (SCC);173 DLR (4th) 66;1999 CanLII 688 (SCC);[1999] CarswellBC 1064;EYB 1999-12568;42 WCB (2d) 232;63 CRR (2d) 43;134 CCC (3d) 353;201 WAC 1;[1999] 2 SCR 290;[1999] SCJ No 27 (QL);24 CR (5th) 1;AZ-50065805;123 BCAC 1;239 NR 201;JE 99-1128;[1999] ACS no 27

R. v. Stone (B.T.) (1999), 239 N.R. 201 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Temp. Cite: [1999] N.R. TBEd. MY.040

Bert Thomas Stone (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent)

Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. Bert Thomas Stone (respondent) and The Attorney General of Canada, the Attorney General for Ontario and the Attorney General for Alberta (interveners)

(25969; 26032)

Indexed As: R. v. Stone (B.T.)

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier,

Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major,

Bastarache and Binnie, JJ.

May 27, 1999.

Summary:

The accused was charged with second degree murder in the death of his wife. He was convicted of manslaughter after a trial by judge and jury. The accused had spent 18 months in pretrial custody. The trial judge treated the 18 months as the equivalent of three years and sentenced the accused to a further four years' imprisonment, for a total sentence of seven years. The accused appealed his conviction. The Crown appealed the sentence.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal (see 86 B.C.A.C. 169; 142 W.A.C. 169) and the sentence appeal (see 89 B.C.A.C. 139; 145 W.A.C. 139). The accused and Crown appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed both appeals. Binnie, J., dissenting (Lamer, C.J.C., Iacobucci and Major, JJ., concurring), would have allowed the conviction appeal and ordered a new trial.

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law (Charter, s. 1) - The Supreme Court of Canada held that where the accused raised a defence of automatism, the related legal burden was on the accused to prove involuntariness on a balance of probabilities to the trier of fact - The court held that while placing this burden on the accused limited a per­son's rights under s. 11(d) of the Charter, the limitation was justified under s. 1 - See paragraphs 80 to 82.

Criminal Law - Topic 97

Mental disorder - Insanity, automatism, etc. - What consti­tutes "insanity" (incl. "not criminally responsible due to mental disorder") - [See third Criminal Law - Topic 103 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 98

Mental disorder - Insanity, automatism, etc. - What consti­tutes "disease of the mind" - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "[t]aken alone, the question of what mental conditions are included in the term disease of the mind is a question of law. However, the trial judge must also determine whether the condition the accused claims to have suffered from satisfies the legal test for disease of the mind. This involves an assessment of the particular evidence in the case rather than a general principle of law and is thus a question of mixed law and fact. ... The question of whether the accused actually suffered from a disease of the mind is a question of fact to be determined by the trier of fact." - See paragraph 97.

Criminal Law - Topic 98

Mental disorder - Insanity, automatism, etc. - What consti­tutes "disease of the mind" - [See first and third Criminal Law - Topic 103 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 102.1

Mental disorder - Insanity, automatism, etc. - Voluntariness - [See fifth and sev­enth Criminal Law - Topic 103 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 103

Mental disorder - Insanity, automatism, etc. - Automatism or noninsane automat­ism - A man stabbed his wife 47 times - He raised defences of insane (mental dis­order) automatism and noninsane (non-mental disorder) automat­ism, based on words (extreme insults) his wife had said to him immediately before the stabbing - The trial judge ruled that only mental disorder automatism should be left with the jury - The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the decision - The condi­tion the accused alleged to suffer from was a dis­ease of the mind in the legal sense - In particular, the trigger was not "extra­ordi­nary external events" that would amount to an extreme shock or blow that would cause a normal person, in the accused's circum­stances, to suffer a disso­ciation in the absence of a disease of the mind - See paragraphs 123 to 127.

Criminal Law - Topic 103

Mental disorder - Insanity, automatism, etc. - Automatism or noninsane automat­ism - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "[t]he refer­ence to unconscious­ness in the definition of automatism has been the source of some criticism. In her article 'Automatism and Criminal Respon­sibility' ..., W.H. Holland points out that this refer­ence to uncon­sciousness reveals that the law assumes that a person is necessarily either con­scious or uncon­scious. However, the medical literature speaks of different levels of conscious­ness ... . Indeed, the expert evidence in the present case reveals that medically speak­ing, unconscious means 'flat on the floor', that is, in a comatose-type state. I there­fore prefer to define automatism as a state of impaired con­sciousness, rather than uncon­sciousness, in which an individual, though capable of action, has no voluntary control over that action." - See paragraph 56.

Criminal Law - Topic 103

Mental disorder - Insanity, automatism, etc. - Automatism or noninsane automat­ism - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "... a success­ful claim of insane automa­tism will trigger s. 16 of the [Crim­inal] Code and result in a verdict of not crimi­nally responsible on account of men­tal disorder. Thus, although courts to date have spoken of insane 'auto­matism' and non-insane 'automatism' for purposes of consistency, it is important to recognize that in actuality true 'automatism' only includes involuntary behaviour which does not stem from a disease of the mind. Involuntary behaviour which results from a disease of the mind is more correctly labelled a s. 16 mental disorder rather than insane automatism." - See paragraph 61.

Criminal Law - Topic 103

Mental disorder - Insanity, automatism, etc. - Automatism or noninsane automat­ism - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "... the terms 'mental disorder' automatism and 'non-mental disorder' automatism rather than 'insane' automatism and 'non-insane' auto­matism more accu­rately reflect the recent changes to s. 16 of the [Crimi­nal] Code, and the addition of Part XX.1 of the Code." - See paragraph 61.

Criminal Law - Topic 103

Mental disorder - Insanity, automatism, etc. - Automatism or noninsane automat­ism - The Supreme Court of Canada developed a general test applicable to all cases in­volving claims of automatism (i.e., mental disorder and non-mental disorder automa­tism) - The trial judge must first determine whether the accused had estab­lished a proper evidentiary foundation for the defence - If yes, the trial judge must then determine whether the condition alleged by the accused was mental disorder or non-men­tal disorder automatism - The court stated that the legal burden of estab­lishing a proper evidentiary foundation was on the accused to prove involuntariness on a balance of probabilities to the trier of fact -All cases would require an assertion of involuntariness and confirming psychia­tric evidence - The court provided guid­ance on additional relevant evidence (ex., the nature of the alleged automatism trig­ger, the existence or non-existence of corrob­orating evidence, motive) - See paragraphs 62 to 92.

Criminal Law - Topic 103

Mental disorder - Insanity, automatism, etc. - Automatism or noninsane automat­ism - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that where an accused lays a proper evidentiary founda­tion for an automatism defence, the trial judge must then deter­mine which form of automatism, mental disorder automatism or non-mental dis­order automatism, should be left with the trier of fact - The court discussed the application of the internal cause theory, the continuing danger theory and other policy factors in the determina­tion of whether the condition the accused claimed to have suffered from was a dis­ease of the mind - See paragraphs 62 to 65 and 93 to 118.

Criminal Law - Topic 103

Mental disorder - Insanity, automatism, etc. - Automatism or noninsane automat­ism - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "voluntariness, rather than consciousness, is the key legal element of automatistic behaviour since a defence of automatism amounts to a denial of the voluntariness component of the actus reus." - See para­graph 70.

Criminal Law - Topic 103

Mental disorder - Insanity, automatism, etc. - Automatism or noninsane automat­ism - The accused stabbed his wife 47 times - He raised the defence, inter alia, of non­insane automat­ism based on a psy­chologi­cal blow - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "[i]n cases involving claims of psychological blow automatism, evidence of an extreme­ly shocking trigger will be required to establish that a normal person might have reacted to the trigger by enter­ing an auto­matistic state, as the accused claims to have done." - See para­graph 108 - The comparison involved a "contextual objec­tive test" - The court stated that "[t]he accused's automatistic reaction to the alleged trigger must be assessed from the perspective of a similar­ly situated individ­ual. This requires that the circumstances of the case be taken into account. However, I emphasize that this is not a subjective test." - See paragraph 110.

Criminal Law - Topic 103

Mental disorder - Insanity, automatism, etc. - Automatism or noninsane automat­ism - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "... in his instructions to the jury on the voluntariness issue in cases of non-mental disorder automatism, the trial judge should begin by thoroughly review­ing the serious policy factors which sur­round automatism, including concerns about feignability and the repute of the administration of justice. It will also be helpful for the trial judge to refer specifi­cally to evidence relevant to the issue of involuntariness, such as: the severity of the triggering stimulus, corrob­orating evidence of bystanders, corroborat­ing medical his­tory of automatistic-like dissociative states, whether there is evi­dence of a motive for the crime, and whether the alleged trigger of the automat­ism is also the victim of the automatistic violence." - See paragraph 120.

Criminal Law - Topic 107

Mental disorder - Insanity, automatism, etc. - Evidence - [See fifth Criminal Law - Topic 103 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4353

Procedure - Charge or directions to jury - Directions regarding corroboration - [See ninth Criminal Law - Topic 103 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4357

Procedure - Charge or directions to jury - Directions regarding defences and theory of the defence - [See ninth Criminal Law - Topic 103 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4369

Procedure - Charge or directions to jury - Directions regarding motive or design - [See ninth Criminal Law - Topic 103 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5037

Appeals - Indictable offences - Dismissal of appeal if no prejudice, substantial wrong or miscarriage results - Evidentiary error - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5367 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5038

Appeals - Indictable offences - Dismissal of appeal if no prejudice, substantial wrong or miscarriage results - Procedural error - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5367 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5218

Evidence and witnesses - Burden of proof - Respecting defences - [See Civil Rights -Topic 8348 and fifth Criminal Law - Topic 103 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5367

Evidence and witnesses - Documents and reports - Reports of experts - The accused stabbed his wife 47 times - His defences were, inter alia, insane automatism and noninsane automatism - Defence counsel, in his opening address, indicated that he would call both the accused and a psy­chiatrist to support the automatism defence - The trial judge ordered the defence to produce the psychiatrist's report at the outset of the defence case - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the defence waived the privilege in the report at the opening of the defence case when defence counsel made certain references to the content of the psychiatrist's anticipated evidence - Alternatively, the act of calling the expert waived any privilege attached to the report and no miscarriage of justice resulted from the premature disclosure (Criminal Code, s. 686(1)(b)(iii)) - See paragraphs 128, 247 to 250.

Criminal Law - Topic 5831.9

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Domestic violence - [See Crim­inal Law - Topic 5882 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5848

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Provocation - The Supreme Court of Canada held that it was not an error for a sentencing judge to consider provocation as a mitigating factor after s. 232 of the Criminal Code had reduced a murder verdict to a manslaughter verdict - "Because both first and second degree murder carry a minimum sentence of life imprisonment under s. 235 of the Code, judges have no discretion to consider provocation as a mitigating factor in deter­mining appropriate sentences for these offences. Section 232 remedies this prob­lem. In cases involving provocation, s. 232 permits a verdict of murder to be reduced to one of manslaughter, for which there is no minimum penalty unless a firearm was used in the commission of the offence (s. 236). This in turn allows for the consider­ation of provocation in the assessment of the offender's moral culpability and hence in the determination of an appropriate sentence." - See paragraph 236.

Criminal Law - Topic 5848

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Provocation - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5882 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5882

Sentence - Manslaughter - A 42 year old accused was convicted of manslaughter after stabbing his wife 47 times with a hunting knife - He voluntarily surrendered to police after six weeks - The accused claimed provocation - The accused spent 18 months in pretrial custody - The trial judge accepted the 18 months' pretrial custody as equivalent to three years and imposed an additional term of four years' imprisonment, for a total sentence of seven years' imprisonment - The British Colum­bia Court of Appeal upheld the sentence - The Crown appealed, submitting that: the trial judge erred in taking provocation into account on sentencing; the trial judge failed to take into account that this was a spousal killing; and the sentence was unfit - The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the sentence appeal - See paragraphs 138 to 149.

Evidence - Topic 4106

Witnesses - Privilege - General - Waiver of privilege - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5367 ].

Evidence - Topic 4107

Witnesses - Privilege - General - Dis­clo­sure of material for which privilege claimed - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5367 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Rabey, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 513; 32 N.R. 451, affing. (1977), 17 O.R.(2d) 1; 79 D.L.R.(4th) 414 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 27, 58, 164, 207].

R. v. Parks, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 871; 140 N.R. 161; 55 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [paras. 28, 176].

R. v. MacLeod (1980), 52 C.C.C.(2d) 193 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [paras. 30, 167].

R. v. Archibald (R.J.) (1992), 15 B.C.A.C. 301; 27 W.A.C. 301 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Eklund, [1985] B.C.J. No. 2415 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Peruta (R.) - see R. v. Brouillette (C.); R. v. Peruta (R.).

R. v. Brouillette (C.); R. v. Peruta (R.), [1992] R.J.Q. 2776; 51 Q.A.C. 79; 78 C.C.C.(3d) 350 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 46, 178].

Hodgkinson v. Simms (1988), 33 B.C.L.R.(2d) 129 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 46, 178].

R. v. Shropshire (M.T.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 227; 188 N.R. 284; 65 B.C.A.C. 37; 106 W.A.C. 37, refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. C.A.M., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 500; 194 N.R. 321; 73 B.C.A.C. 81; 120 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. K. (1970), 3 C.C.C.(2d) 84 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [paras. 55, 190].

R. v. Chaulk and Morrissette, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1303; 119 N.R. 161; 69 Man.R.(2d) 161; [1991] 2 W.W.R. 385; 62 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 1 C.R.R.(2d) 1; 2 C.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [paras. 60, 186].

Bratty v. Attorney General for Northern Ireland, [1963] A.C. 386 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 60, 161].

R. v. Falconer (1990), 50 A. Crim. R. 244 (Aust. H.C.), refd to. [paras. 60, 190].

R. v. Cottle, [1958] N.Z.L.R. 999, refd to. [paras. 60, 202].

R. v. Daviault (H.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 63; 173 N.R. 1; 64 Q.A.C. 81, refd to. [paras. 62, 185].

Director of Investigation and Research, Competition Act v. Southam Inc. et al., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 748; 209 N.R. 20, refd to. [para. 68].

R. v. Théroux (R.), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 5; 151 N.R. 104; 54 Q.A.C. 184, refd to. [paras. 69, 185].

R. v. Szymusiak, [1972] 3 O.R. 602 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 75, 180].

Hill v. Baxter, [1958] 1 Q.B. 277 (D.C.), refd to. [paras. 79, 220].

State v. Caddell (1975), 215 S.E.2d 348 (N.C.), refd to. [para. 79].

Fulcher v. State (1981), 633 P.2d 142 (Wyo.), refd to. [para. 79].

Polston v. State (1984), 685 P.2d 1 (Wyo.), refd to. [para. 79].

State v. Fields (1989), 376 S.E.2d 740 (N.C.), refd to. [para. 79].

R. v. Swain, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 933; 125 N.R. 1; 47 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [paras. 80, 237].

General Electric Co. v. Joiner (1997), 118 S. Ct. 512, refd to. [para. 85].

R. v. Cameron (J.S.) (1992), 55 O.A.C. 234; 71 C.C.C.(3d) 272 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 111, 194].

R. v. Bevan and Griffith, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 599; 154 N.R. 245; 64 O.A.C. 165, refd to. [para. 127].

R. v. McDonnell (T.E.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 948; 210 N.R. 241; 196 A.R. 321; 141 W.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 130].

R. v. Laberge (K.K.) (1995), 165 A.R. 375; 89 W.A.C. 375 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 133].

R. v. Martineau, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 633; 112 N.R. 83; 109 A.R. 321; 58 C.C.C.(3d) 353; [1990] 6 W.W.R. 97; 79 C.R.(3d) 129; 76 Alta. L.R.(2d) 1; 50 C.R.R. 110, refd to. [paras. 133, 219].

R. v. Creighton, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 3; 157 N.R. 1; 65 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 133].

R. v. Campbell (1991), 70 Man.R.(2d) 158 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 135].

R. v. Woermann (C.B.) (1992), 81 Man.R.(2d) 255; 30 W.A.C. 255 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 135].

Brooks, Allen and Dixon et al. v. Canada Safeway Ltd., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1219; 94 N.R. 373; 58 Man.R.(2d) 161, refd to. [para. 139].

R. v. Lavallee, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 852; 108 N.R. 321; 67 Man.R.(2d) 1; 55 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 76 C.R.(3d) 329; [1990] 4 W.W.R. 1, refd to. [paras. 139, 201].

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; 7 C.R.(4th) 117, refd to. [para. 139].

Weatherall v. Canada (Attorney General) - see Conway v. Canada.

Conway v. Canada, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 872; 154 N.R. 392, refd to. [para. 140].

R. v. Doyle (1991), 108 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 294 A.P.R. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 141].

R. v. Brown (C.R.) et al. (1992), 125 A.R. 150; 14 W.A.C. 150; 13 C.R.(4th) 346 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 141].

R. v. Pitkeathly (D.B.) (1994), 69 O.A.C. 352; 29 C.R.(4th) 182 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 141].

R. v. Jackson (W.J.) (1996), 184 A.R. 93; 122 W.A.C. 93; 106 C.C.C.(3d) 557 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 141].

R. v. Edwards (D.A.); R. v. Levo (A.E.) (1996), 88 O.A.C. 217; 28 O.R.(3d) 54 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 141].

R. v. Tolson (1889), 23 Q.B.D. 168, refd to. [para. 191].

Parnerkar v. R., [1974] S.C.R. 449, refd to. [para. 193].

R. v. Schwartz, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 443; 88 N.R. 90; 56 Man.R.(2d) 92; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 97; [1989] 1 W.W.R. 289; 66 C.R.(3d) 251; 55 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 197].

R. v. Leary, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 29; 13 N.R. 592, refd to. [para. 201].

R. v. Linney, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 646; 13 N.R. 217, refd to. [para. 201].

R. v. Thibert (N.E.), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 37; 192 N.R. 1; 178 A.R. 321; 110 W.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 201].

R. v. Malott (M.A.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 123; 222 N.R. 4; 106 O.A.C. 132, refd to. [para. 201].

Latour v. R., [1951] S.C.R. 19, refd to. [para. 201].

R. v. Osolin, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 595; 162 N.R. 1; 38 B.C.A.C. 81; 62 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 201].

State v. Hinkle (1996), 489 S.E.2d 257 (W. Va.), refd to. [para. 202].

Hawkins v. R. (1994), 72 A. Crim. R. 288 (Aust. H.C.), refd to. [para. 202].

Police v. Bannin, [1991] 2 N.Z.L.R. 237 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 202].

R. v. Quick; R. v. Paddison, [1973] 3 All E.R. 347 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 216].

R. v. Hennessy (1989), 89 Cr. App. R. 10 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 216].

R. v. McNaughton - see M'Naghten's Case.

M'Naghten's Case (1843), 10 Cl. & Fin. 200; 8 E.R. 718 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 217].

R. v. Burgess, [1991] 2 All E.R. 769 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 223].

R. v. Kemp, [1956] 3 All E.R. 249, refd to. [para. 228].

R. v. Sullivan, [1984] A.C. 156 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 230].

R. v. Corbett, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 670; 85 N.R. 81; 64 C.R.(3d) 1; 41 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 28 B.C.L.R.(2d) 145, refd to. [para. 239].

R. v. Bernard, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 833; 90 N.R. 321; 32 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 240].

R. v. Hill, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 313; 68 N.R. 161; 17 O.A.C. 33, refd to. [para. 240].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 16, sect. 232, sect. 687(1), sect. 718.2(a)(ii) [para. 54].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Campbell, Kenneth L., Psychological Blow Automatism: A Narrow Defence (1980-81), 23 Crim. L.Q. 342, pp. 354 [para. 104]; 357, 358 [para. 107].

Canada, Department of Justice, Proposals to amend the Criminal Code (general principles) (1993), generally [paras. 74, 199].

Canadian Psychiatric Association, Brief to the House of Commons Standing Com­mittee on Justice and the Solicitor Gen­eral re Proposed Revisions for Automat­ism as Contained in the Draft "Toward a New General Part for the Criminal Code of Canada" (1992), generally [para. 98].

Grant, Isabel, and Spitz, Laura, Case Comment re R. v. Parks (1993), 72 Can. Bar Rev. 224, pp. 235, 236 [para. 116].

Grant, Isabel, Chunn, Dorothy, and Boyle, Christine, The Law of Homicide (1994 Looseleaf), p. 6-118 [para. 208].

Halsbury's Laws of England (1990) (4th Ed. - Reissue), vol. 2(1), para. 6 [para. 202].

Holland, Winnifred H., Automatism and Criminal Responsibility (1982-83), 25 Crim. L.Q. 95, p. 96 [para. 56].

LaFave, Wayne R., and Scott, Austin W., Substantive Criminal Law (1986), vol. 1, p. 545 [para. 202].

Sopinka, John, Lederman, Sydney N., and Bryant, Alan W., The Law of Evidence in Canada (1992), pp. 53 [para. 67]; 54 [para. 68]; 58, 61 [para. 197]; 129 [para. 87].

Stuart, Donald, Canadian Criminal Law: A Treatise (3rd Ed. 1995), p. 108 [para. 231].

Tollefson, Edwin A., and Starkman, Ber­nard, Mental Disorder in Criminal Pro­ceedings (1993), p. 53 [para. 217].

Williams, Glanville, Textbook of Criminal Law (2nd Ed. 1983), pp. 673, 674 [paras. 180, 238]; 675 [para. 218]; 676 [para. 217].

Counsel:

David G. Butcher and Derek A. Brindle, for Bert Thomas Stone;

Gil D. McKinnon, Q.C., Ujjal Dosanjh, Q.C., and Marion Paruk, for Her Majesty The Queen;

Graham Garton, Q.C., for the intervener, the Attorney General of Canada;

Gary T. Trotter, for the intervener, the Attorney General for Ontario;

Jack Watson, Q.C., written submissions for the intervener, the Attorney General for Alberta.

Solicitors of Record:

Singleton Urquhart Scott, Vancouver, British Columbia, for Bert Thomas Stone;

G.D. McKinnon, Vancouver, British Col­umbia, for Her Majesty The Queen;

Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Canada;

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

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

These appeals were heard on June 26, 1998, by Lamer, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache and Binnie, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The decision of the court was delivered in both official languages on May 27, 1999, and the following opinions were filed:

Bastarache, J. (L'Heureux-Dubé, Gon­thier, Cory and McLachlin, JJ., con­curring) - see paragraphs 1 to 151;

Binnie, J., dissenting as to appeal from conviction (Lamer, C.J.C., Iacobucci and Major, JJ., concurring) - see para­graphs 152 to 251.