R. v. Tapaquon, (1993) 159 N.R. 321 (SCC)
Judge | Sopinka, Gonthier, Iacobucci and Major, JJ. |
Court | Supreme Court of Canada |
Case Date | December 16, 1993 |
Jurisdiction | Canada (Federal) |
Citations | (1993), 159 N.R. 321 (SCC);[1993] 4 SCR 535;109 DLR (4th) 637;87 CCC (3d) 1;1993 CanLII 52 (SCC);[1994] 1 WWR 641;26 CR (4th) 193;159 NR 321 |
R. v. Tapaquon (1993), 159 N.R. 321 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
....................
Darren Lyle Tapaquon (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) and The Attorney General of Canada (intervenor)
(No. 22926)
Indexed As: R. v. Tapaquon
Supreme Court of Canada
Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé,
Sopinka, Gonthier, Iacobucci and
Major, JJ.
December 16, 1993.
Summary:
An accused was charged with assault causing bodily harm. He elected to be tried by judge alone. Following a preliminary inquiry the Provincial Court judge found there was insufficient evidence to warrant committal on the original charge and committed the accused for trial on the lesser included offence of common assault. The prosecutor preferred an indictment against the accused on the original charge of assault causing bodily harm. The accused moved to quash the indictment on the ground he had been discharged on the original charge.
The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench allowed the motion and quashed the indictment. The Crown appealed.
The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at 97 Sask.R. 245; 12 W.A.C. 245, allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the Court of Queen's Bench for trial on the charge of assault causing bodily harm. The accused appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada, L'Heureux-Dubé, J., dissenting, allowed the appeal and restored the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench quashing the indictment.
Criminal Law - Topic 3515
Preliminary inquiry - General principles - Disposition of charge where insufficient evidence to stand trial - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the appropriate disposition of charges for which a preliminary inquiry judge finds there is insufficient evidence to put the accused on trial, is discharge of the accused on those charges - See paragraph 17.
Criminal Law - Topic 3551
Preliminary inquiry - Powers of judge - General - The Supreme Court of Canada disagreed with the view that the power of a preliminary inquiry judge was limited to committal or discharge and that the specification of offences was left to the prosecutor - The court stated that "[i]f there is only one charge, the options for the judge are to commit or discharge. If there are several charges ... the judge must specify 'the charges on which he orders the accused to stand trial'" - Further, "[i]n requiring the judge to specify the charges in respect of which the accused is ordered to stand trial, it follows that with respect to other charges in the information the disposition is that the accused is discharged" - See paragraphs 16 and 17.
Criminal Law - Topic 4262
Procedure - Indictment - Preferring of indictments - The Supreme Court of Canada held that a prosecutor in a proceeding involving indictable offences and a trial without a jury had the power to prefer an indictment (1) on any charge in respect of which the accused had been ordered to stand trial; or (2) in respect of any charge founded on the facts disclosed in the evidence taken at the preliminary hearing, provided that it is not an offence charged and in respect of which the accused was not ordered to stand trial - See paragraph 27.
Criminal Law - Topic 4264.2
Procedure - Indictment - Preferring of indictments, on charge where committal only on included offence - An accused charged with assault causing bodily harm elected to be tried by a judge alone - Following a preliminary inquiry, the Provincial Court judge found there was insufficient evidence and committed the accused for trial on the lesser included offence of common assault - The prosecutor preferred an indictment on the original charge of assault causing bodily harm - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the prosecutor could not prefer an indictment for the offence originally charged, because the preliminary inquiry judge's finding that there was insufficient evidence, amounted to a discharge of the accused on that charge.
Criminal Law - Topic 4274
Procedure - Indictment - Amendment, adding counts disclosed by evidence taken at a preliminary inquiry - Section 574(1)(b) of the Criminal Code provided that a prosecutor could prefer an indictment against any person who had been ordered to stand trial, in respect of "any charge founded on the facts disclosed by the evidence taken on the preliminary inquiry, in addition to or in substitution for any charge on which that person was ordered to stand trial" - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the words "in addition or in substitution for any charge" did not extend to permit the addition or substitution of a charge for which the accused was not committed to stand trial because there was insufficient evidence - See paragraphs 25 and 26.
Statutes - Topic 2603
Interpretation - Interpretation by context - Intention from whole of section or statute - The Supreme Court of Canada, per Sopinka, J., stated that "[i]t is a fundamental rule of statutory construction that the provisions of a statute should be interpreted not in isolation but by reference to the statute as a whole. An interpretation should be adopted that as far as possible harmonizes provisions that bear on the same subject matter" - See paragraph 22.
Cases Noticed:
R. v. Hampton (1990), 69 Man.R.(2d) 293 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied [1991] 1 S.C.R. viii; 131 N.R. 399; 75 Man.R.(2d) 240, consd. [para. 5].
R. v. D.K.H. - see R. v. Hampton.
R. v. Hill (1987), 57 Sask.R. 234 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 5].
R. v. Myers (D.J.) (1991), 91 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 37; 286 A.P.R. 37; 65 C.C.C.(3d) 135 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].
United States of America v. Shephard, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 1067; 9 N.R. 215; 34 C.R.N.S. 207; 70 D.L.R.(3d) 136; 30 C.C.C.(2d) 424, consd. [para. 12].
R. v. Miller, [1970] 3 C.C.C. 89 (Ont. H.C.), consd. [para. 18].
St. Jean v. R. (1978), 7 C.R.(3d) 14 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].
R. v. McKibbon, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 131; 52 N.R. 81; 3 O.A.C. 85, consd. [para. 18].
R. v. Chabot, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 985; 34 N.R. 361; 55 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 18 C.R.(3d) 258; 22 C.R.(3d) 350; 117 D.L.R.(3d) 527, refd to. [para. 18].
Canada (Procureur général) v. Bélair (1991), 10 C.R.(4th) 209 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].
Compagnie Immobilière BCN Ltée v. Minister of National Revenue, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 865; 25 N.R. 361, refd to. [para. 22].
R. v. Hamm, [1984] 5 W.W.R. 696; 34 Sask.R. 241 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].
R. v. Barbeau, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 845; 140 N.R. 211; 49 Q.A.C. 220, refd to. [para. 38].
Statutes Noticed:
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 548 [paras. 11, 33, 39]; sect. 566 [paras. 7, 33]; sect. 574(1) [paras. 8, 33, 42]; sect. 574(3) [paras. 33, 42]; sect. 576(1) [paras. 8, 33]; sect. 577 [paras. 9, 33].
Counsel:
Norman H. Bercovich, for the appellant;
Michael M. Vass, for the respondent;
Bernard Laprade and Peter Lamont, for the intervenor.
Solicitors of Record:
Ryan, MacIsaac & Associates, Regina, Saskatchewan, for the appellant;
Attorney General of Saskatchewan, Regina, Saskatchewan, for the respondent;
John C. Tait, Q.C., Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervenor.
This appeal was heard on May 25, 1993, before Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.
The decision of the court was delivered in both official languages on December 16, 1993, and the following opinions were filed:
Sopinka, J. (Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, Gonthier, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 29;
L'Heureux-Dubé, J., dissenting - see paragraphs 30 to 70.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
R. v. Wilder (D.M.), [2002] B.C.T.C. 705 (SC)
...Columbia v. Henfrey Samson Belair Ltd., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 24; 97 N.R. 61; 59 D.L.R.(4th) 726, refd to. [para. 176]. R. v. Tapaquon, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 535; 159 N.R. 321; 116 Sask.R. 81; 59 W.A.C. 81; 87 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. Canada (Attorney General) v. Jackson, [1946] S.C.R. 489, refd t......
-
R. v. Monney (I.), (1997) 105 O.A.C. 1 (CA)
...général), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; 94 N.R. 167; 24 Q.A.C. 2; 58 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 25 C.P.R.(3d) 417, refd to. [para. 135]. R. v. Tapaquon, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 535; 116 Sask.R. 81; 59 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. R. v. D.A.Z., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 1025; 140 N.R. 327; 131 A.R. 1; 25 W.A.C. 1; 76 C.C.C.(3d) 9......
-
Willick v. Willick, (1994) 173 N.R. 321 (SCC)
...275 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18]. Moosa v. Moosa (1990), 26 R.F.L.(3d) 107 (Ont. Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 21]. R. v. Tapaquon, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 535; 159 N.R. 321; 116 Sask.R. 81; 59 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. Friesen v. Friesen (1985), 48 R.F.L.(2d) 137 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 25]. Par......
-
Willick v. Willick, (1994) 125 Sask.R. 81 (SCC)
...275 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18]. Moosa v. Moosa (1990), 26 R.F.L.(3d) 107 (Ont. Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 21]. R. v. Tapaquon, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 535; 159 N.R. 321; 116 Sask.R. 81; 59 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. Friesen v. Friesen (1985), 48 R.F.L.(2d) 137 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 25]. Par......
-
R. v. Wilder (D.M.), [2002] B.C.T.C. 705 (SC)
...Columbia v. Henfrey Samson Belair Ltd., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 24; 97 N.R. 61; 59 D.L.R.(4th) 726, refd to. [para. 176]. R. v. Tapaquon, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 535; 159 N.R. 321; 116 Sask.R. 81; 59 W.A.C. 81; 87 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. Canada (Attorney General) v. Jackson, [1946] S.C.R. 489, refd t......
-
Willick v. Willick, (1994) 125 Sask.R. 81 (SCC)
...275 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18]. Moosa v. Moosa (1990), 26 R.F.L.(3d) 107 (Ont. Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 21]. R. v. Tapaquon, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 535; 159 N.R. 321; 116 Sask.R. 81; 59 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. Friesen v. Friesen (1985), 48 R.F.L.(2d) 137 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 25]. Par......
-
R. v. Monney (I.), (1997) 105 O.A.C. 1 (CA)
...général), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; 94 N.R. 167; 24 Q.A.C. 2; 58 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 25 C.P.R.(3d) 417, refd to. [para. 135]. R. v. Tapaquon, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 535; 116 Sask.R. 81; 59 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. R. v. D.A.Z., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 1025; 140 N.R. 327; 131 A.R. 1; 25 W.A.C. 1; 76 C.C.C.(3d) 9......
-
Willick v. Willick, (1994) 173 N.R. 321 (SCC)
...275 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18]. Moosa v. Moosa (1990), 26 R.F.L.(3d) 107 (Ont. Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 21]. R. v. Tapaquon, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 535; 159 N.R. 321; 116 Sask.R. 81; 59 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. Friesen v. Friesen (1985), 48 R.F.L.(2d) 137 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 25]. Par......
-
Table of Cases
...157–58 R v Szczerba (2002), 314 AR 114 (QB) ................................................................ 294 R v Tapaquon, [1993] 4 SCR 535 ........................................................................ 247 R v Tatarchuk (1992), 4 Alta LR (3d) 300 (QB) ..............................
-
Table of Cases
...385 Talbot , R v , (2002), 161 CCC (3d) 256, 1 CR (6th) 396 (Ont CA) ........................... 256, 260 Tapaquon , R v , [1993] 4 SCR 535 ......................................................... 149 Tash , R v , 2013 ONCA 380 ............................................................. ......
-
Table of Cases
...Reserved. 666 Table of Cases Talbot , R v (2002), 161 CCC (3d) 256, 1 CR (6th) 396 (Ont CA) .................. 286, 291 Tapaquon , R v , [1993] 4 SCR 535, 1993 CanLII 52 .................................. 162 Tarrant , Regina v , 1981 CanLII 1635, 34 OR (2d) 747 (CA) .............................
-
The Trial Process
...means that there could be occasions when an indictment is the first charge document prepared. 3 Section 574. 4 R. v. Tapaquon , [1993] 4 S.C.R. 535. 5 Courts had already held that the power was available in this situation, but the Code has since been amended to explicitly state it. See R. v......