R. v. Thibert (N.E.), (1996) 192 N.R. 1 (SCC)

JudgeSopinka, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.
CourtSupreme Court (Canada)
Case DateNovember 09, 1995
JurisdictionCanada (Federal)
Citations(1996), 192 N.R. 1 (SCC);45 CR (4th) 1;[1996] SCJ No 2 (QL);178 AR 321;[1996] 1 SCR 37;1996 CanLII 249 (SCC);104 CCC (3d) 1;192 NR 1;131 DLR (4th) 675;[1996] 3 WWR 1

R. v. Thibert (N.E.) (1996), 192 N.R. 1 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Norman Eugene Thibert v. Her Majesty The Queen

(24435)

Indexed As: R. v. Thibert (N.E.)

Supreme Court of Canada

Sopinka, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci

and Major, JJ.

January 25, 1996.

Summary:

An accused appealed his jury conviction for second degree murder.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, McClung, J.A., dissenting, in a decision reported 157 A.R. 316; 77 W.A.C. 316, dismissed the appeal. The accused appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, Major and Iacobucci, JJ., dissenting, allowed the appeal, set aside the decision of the Court of Appeal and directed a new trial on the charge of second degree murder.

Criminal Law - Topic 1280

Murder - Provocation - General principles - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that s. 232 of the Criminal Code "... spec­ifies that there is both an objective and a subjective element to the defence [of provocation]. Both must be satisfied if the defence is to be invoked. First, there must be a wrongful act or insult of such a nature that it is sufficient to deprive an ordinary person of the power of self-con­trol as the objective element. Second, the subjective element requires that the accused act upon that insult on the sudden and before there was time for his passion to cool. ... the objective element should be taken as an attempt to weigh in the bal­ance those very human frailties which sometimes lead people to act irrationally and impulsively against the need to protect society by discouraging acts of homicidal violence." - See paragraph 4.

Criminal Law - Topic 1282

Murder - Provocation - Whether accused acted before his passion cooled - The Supreme Court of Canada reviewed the subjective element of the defence of prov­ocation - See paragraphs 20, 21 - The court stated that "[i]n R. v. Tripodi, [1955] S.C.R. 438, Rand, J., interpreted 'sudden provocation' to mean that 'the wrongful act or insult must strike upon a mind unpre­pared for it, that it must make an unex­pected impact that takes the understanding by surprise and sets the passions aflame' (p. 443). To this definition, I would add that the background and history of the relationship between the accused and the deceased should be taken into consider­ation. ..." - See paragraph 21.

Criminal Law - Topic 1283

Murder - Provocation - What constitutes an "insult" - In discussing the defence of provocation the Supreme Court of Canada reviewed the definition of "insult" - See paragraphs 8 and 62.

Criminal Law - Topic 1284

Murder - Provocation - Ordinary person - What constitutes - The Supreme Court of Canada reviewed the objective element of the defence of provocation - See para­graphs 9 to 19 - The court stated that "... the wrongful act or insult must be one which could, in light of the past history of the relationship between the accused and the deceased, deprive an ordinary person, of the same age, and sex, and sharing with the accused such other factors as would give the act or insult in question a special significance, of the power of self-control." - See paragraph 19.

Criminal Law - Topic 1285

Murder - Provocation - Jury charge - The Supreme Court of Canada reaffirmed the necessity of instructing the jury that there is no onus on an accused to establish the defence of provocation, but rather on the Crown to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that there has been no provocation - See paragraph 2.

Criminal Law - Topic 1285

Murder - Provocation - Jury charge - An accused was convicted of second degree murder - At trial he raised the defence of provocation - He appealed his conviction, asserting that the trial judge did not instruct the jury in specific terms that the Crown had the onus of disproving provo­cation - The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.

Criminal Law - Topic 1285

Murder - Provocation - Jury charge - A wife left her husband for a co-worker - The husband sought to speak to the wife in private - The co-worker attempted to leave with her - The husband, who had not slept for 34 hours, pointed a rifle at them - The co-worker held the wife in a possessive manner and moved her back and forth in front of the husband taunting the husband to shoot him - The co-worker advanced towards the husband - The husband shot him - The incident occurred quickly - On appeal of the husband's second degree murder conviction, the issue arose as to whether there was sufficient evidence to have left the defence of prov­ocation with the jury - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the threshold test was satisfied where there was some evidence upon which a reasonable jury acting judi­cially and properly instructed could have found that the defence was applicable - See paragraphs 23 to 31.

Criminal Law - Topic 1285

Murder - Provocation - Jury charge - In discussing when the defence of provoca­tion should be left to a jury, the Supreme Court of Canada stated that "... the trial judge must still determine if there is any evidence upon which a reasonable jury properly instructed and acting judicially could find that there had been provocation. If the trial judge is satisfied that there is such evidence, then the defence must be put to the jury to determine what weight, if any, should be attached to that evidence. Obviously the trial judge should not weigh the sufficiency of the evidence. This is the function reserved for the jury. A trial judge considering whether the evidence has met the threshold test must also take into account the nature of the wrongful act or insult and how that act or insult should be viewed in the context of the case." - See paragraph 7.

Criminal Law - Topic 1289

Murder - Provocation - Evidence and proof - [See all Criminal Law - Topic 1285 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4357

Procedure - Charge or directions to jury - Directions regarding defences and theory of the defence - [See all Criminal Law - Topic 1285 ].

Words and Phrases

Insult - In discussing the defence of provocation the Supreme Court of Canada reviewed the definition of "insult" - See paragraphs 8 and 62.

Cases Noticed:

Latour v. R., [1951] S.C.R. 19, refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. Linney, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 646; 13 N.R. 217, refd to. [para. 2].

Parnerkar v. R., [1974] S.C.R. 449, consd. [paras. 5, 59].

R. v. Faid, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 265; 46 N.R. 461; 42 A.R. 308; 2 C.C.C.(3d) 513; 33 C.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 7].

Taylor v. R., [1947] S.C.R. 462, consd. [paras. 8, 62].

Wright v. R., [1969] S.C.R. 335, consd. [para. 9].

Bedder v. Director of Public Prosecutions, [1954] 1 W.L.R. 1119 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Olbey, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1008; 30 N.R. 152; 50 C.C.C.(2d) 257; 14 C.R.(3d) 44, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Camplin, [1978] A.C. 705 (H.L.), consd. [para. 12].

Director of Public Prosecutions v. Camplin - see R. v. Camplin.

R. v. Hill, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 313; 68 N.R. 161; 17 O.A.C. 33; 25 C.C.C.(3d) 322; 51 C.R.(3d) 97, consd. [para. 15].

R. v. Daniels (1983), 47 A.R. 149; 7 C.C.C.(3d) 542 (N.W.T.C.A.), consd. [para. 16].

R. v. Conway (1985), 17 C.C.C.(3d) 481 (Ont. C.A.), consd. [para. 17].

R. v. Tripodi, [1955] S.C.R. 438, consd. [para. 20].

R. v. Sheridan (1990), 105 A.R. 122; 55 C.C.C.(3d) 313 (C.A.), revd. [1991] 2 S.C.R. 205, consd. [para. 21].

R. v. Galgay, [1972] 2 O.R. 630 (C.A.), consd. [para. 29].

R. v. Haight (1976), 30 C.C.C.(2d) 168 (Ont. C.A.), consd. [para. 29].

R. v. Squire, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 13; 10 N.R. 25, consd. [para. 60].

R. v. Young (L.A.) (1993), 117 N.S.R.(2d) 166; 324 A.P.R. 166; 78 C.C.C.(3d) 538 (C.A.), consd. [para. 64].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 232 [para. 3]; sect. 232(1) [para. 51]; sect. 232(3) [para. 29].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Oxford English Dictionary [para. 8].

Stuart, Don, Canadian Criminal Law (3rd Ed. 1995), p. 498 [para. 7].

Williams, Glanville, Textbook of Criminal Law (2nd Ed. 1983), p. 530 [para. 20].

Counsel:

Peter J. Royal, Q.C., for the appellant;

Goran Tomljanovic, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Royal, McCrum, Duckett & Glancy, Edmonton, Alberta, for the appellant;

The Attorney General for Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on November 9, 1995, before Sopinka, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The judgment of the court was delivered in both official languages on January 25, 1996, including the following opinions:

Cory, J. (Sopinka and McLachlin, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 35;

Major, J., dissenting (Iacobucci, J., con­curring) - see paragraphs 36 to 70.

To continue reading

Request your trial
126 practice notes
  • R. v. Le (T.D.),
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
    • 3 Octubre 2011
    ...Grandin (D.T.) (2001), 152 B.C.A.C. 228; 250 W.A.C. 228; 154 C.C.C.(3d) 408; 2001 BCCA 340, refd to. [para. 211]. 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. R. v. Tran (T.K.), [2010] 3 S.C.R. 350; 409 N.R. 1; 493 A.R. 123; 502 W.A.C. ......
  • R. v. Kong (V.),
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • 10 Agosto 2005
    ...R. v. Arcuri (G.), [2001] 2 S.C.R. 828; 274 N.R. 274; 150 O.A.C. 126; 2001 SCC 54, refd to. [paras. 19, 176]. 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. R. v. Kandola (J.S.) (1993), 27 B.C.A.C. 226; 45 W.A.C. 226; 80 C.C.C.(3d) 481 (C......
  • R. v. Tran (T.K.),
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • 5 Marzo 2008
    ...to. [para. 13]. R. v. Parent (R.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 761 ; 268 N.R. 372 ; 2001 SCC 30 , refd to. [para. 13]. R. v. Thibert (N.E.), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 37; 192 N.R. 1 ; 178 A.R. 321 ; 110 W.A.C. 321 ; 131 D.L.R.(4th) 675 , refd to. [paras. 14, 50]. R. v. Olbey, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1008 ; 30 N......
  • R. v. Cinous (J.), (2002) 285 N.R. 1 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • 21 Marzo 2002
    ...[paras. 57, 168]. R. v. Ruzic (M.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 687; 268 N.R. 1; 145 O.A.C. 235, refd to. [paras. 57, 168]. 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. [paras. 57, R. v. Brisson, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 227; 44 N.R. 1, refd to. [paras. 57, 168]. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
113 cases
  • R. v. Le (T.D.),
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
    • 3 Octubre 2011
    ...Grandin (D.T.) (2001), 152 B.C.A.C. 228; 250 W.A.C. 228; 154 C.C.C.(3d) 408; 2001 BCCA 340, refd to. [para. 211]. 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. R. v. Tran (T.K.), [2010] 3 S.C.R. 350; 409 N.R. 1; 493 A.R. 123; 502 W.A.C. ......
  • R. v. Kong (V.),
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • 10 Agosto 2005
    ...R. v. Arcuri (G.), [2001] 2 S.C.R. 828; 274 N.R. 274; 150 O.A.C. 126; 2001 SCC 54, refd to. [paras. 19, 176]. 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. R. v. Kandola (J.S.) (1993), 27 B.C.A.C. 226; 45 W.A.C. 226; 80 C.C.C.(3d) 481 (C......
  • R. v. Tran (T.K.),
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • 5 Marzo 2008
    ...to. [para. 13]. R. v. Parent (R.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 761 ; 268 N.R. 372 ; 2001 SCC 30 , refd to. [para. 13]. R. v. Thibert (N.E.), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 37; 192 N.R. 1 ; 178 A.R. 321 ; 110 W.A.C. 321 ; 131 D.L.R.(4th) 675 , refd to. [paras. 14, 50]. R. v. Olbey, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1008 ; 30 N......
  • R. v. Cinous (J.), (2002) 285 N.R. 1 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • 21 Marzo 2002
    ...[paras. 57, 168]. R. v. Ruzic (M.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 687; 268 N.R. 1; 145 O.A.C. 235, refd to. [paras. 57, 168]. 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. [paras. 57, R. v. Brisson, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 227; 44 N.R. 1, refd to. [paras. 57, 168]. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • Ontario Court Of Appeal Summaries (January 21 – 25, 2019)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • 31 Enero 2019
    ...ONCA 17, R. v. Mayuran, 2012 SCC 31, R. v. Cairney, 2013 SCC 55, R. v. Tran, 2010 SCC 58, R. v. Buzizi, 2013 SCC 27, R. v. Thibert, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 37, R. v. Grant, 2015 SCC 9, R. v. Cinous, 2002 SCC 29, R. v. Bulmer, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 782, R. v. Park, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 836, R. v. Hill, [1986] ......
9 books & journal articles
  • Table of cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Criminal Law. Eighth edition
    • 1 Septiembre 2022
    ...579, 79 CCC (3d) 449, [1993] SCJ No 42 ...........................................................121, 193, 197, 520, 521 R v Thibert, [1996] 1 SCR 37, 104 CCC (3d) 1, 45 CR (4th) 1 .................................464, 466, 468, 471, 472, 477, 478, 591, 597 R v Thomsen, [1988] 1 SCR 640, 4......
  • Table of Cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Archive Criminal Law. Seventh Edition
    • 4 Agosto 2018
    ...579, 79 CCC (3d) 449, [1993] SCJ No 42 .............................................................. 116, 185, 189, 501–2 R v Thibert, [1996] 1 SCR 37, 104 CCC (3d) 1, 45 CR (4th) 1………………… .445, 446, 449, 452, 453, 458, 459, 561, 566, 567 R v Thomsen, [1988] 1 SCR 640, 40 CCC (3d) 411, 63 ......
  • Table of cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Law and Mental Disorder. A Comprehensive and Practical Approach Preliminary Sections
    • 19 Junio 2013
    ...260 R. v. hibert, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 37 ...............................................................................................................................360, 369 R. v. hurlow (1993), 24 C.R. (4th) 166 (Ont. Ct. Prov. Div.) ...............................................................
  • Conclusion: Trends in Criminal Law
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Criminal Law. Eighth edition
    • 1 Septiembre 2022
    ...4. 63 R v Lavallee , [1990] 1 SCR 852 [ Lavallee ]; R v Pétel , [1994] 1 SCR 3 [ Pétel ]; R v Hibbert , [1995] 1 SCR 973; R v Thibert , [1996] 1 SCR 37 [ Thibert ], discussed in Chapter 9, Section A(3). C RIMINAL LAW 592 The diferent approaches to applying objective standards and deining th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT