R. v. Thomas (A.F.), (1998) 115 B.C.A.C. 161 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache and Binnie, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: December 17, 1998
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1998), 115 B.C.A.C. 161 (SCC)

R. v. Thomas (A.F.) (1998), 115 B.C.A.C. 161 (SCC);

   189 W.A.C. 161

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: [1998] B.C.A.C. TBEd. DE.046

Alexander Francois Thomas (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent)

(25943)

Indexed As: R. v. Thomas (A.F.)

Supreme Court of Canada

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

McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache and Binnie, JJ.

December 17, 1998.

Summary:

The accused was convicted of second degree murder following a jury trial. The accused conceded that he killed the victim, but submitted that his level of intoxication supported a conviction for manslaughter. The accused, two years after the conviction, applied for leave to extend the time to appeal his conviction.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, in a judgment reported 85 B.C.A.C. 303; 138 W.A.C. 303, granted leave and contempor­aneously allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial. The court held that the trial judge erred in answering jury questions on intent and intoxication. However, the court held that it had jurisdiction under s. 686(8) of the Criminal Code to limit the new trial to the issue of whether the accused was guilty of second degree murder or manslaughter. The accused appealed, submitting that the court lacked jurisdiction to so limit a new trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada, L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier and McLachlin, JJ., dis­sent­ing, allowed the appeal. The court held that, following a jury trial resulting in con­viction, the Court of Appeal could not limit the new trial to the issue of second degree murder or manslaughter, even where the accused had conceded at trial that he killed the victim by means of an unlawful act. The court held that it was not deciding whether such limit­ing order was authorized under s. 686(8) in the case of trial by judge alone.

Criminal Law - Topic 4983

Appeals - Indictable offences - Powers of Court of Appeal - Power to make any order that justice requires - Section 686(8) of the Criminal Code provided that a court of appeal issuing an order under ss. 686(2), (4), (6) or (7) "may make any order ... that justice requires" - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that an order under s. 686(8) was ancillary in nature and must be con­sistent with the court's underlying judg­ment - An accused convicted of second degree murder by a jury conceded killing the victim, but argued that his level of intoxi­cation sup­ported a conviction for man­slaughter, not murder - The Court of Appeal ordered a new trial where the trial judge erred in answering jury questions on intoxication and intent, but made an order under s. 686(8) limiting the scope of the new trial to the issue of whether the accused was guilty of murder or man­slaughter - The Supreme Court of Canada held that orders limiting the scope of a new trial following a jury conviction were not authorized under s. 686(8), notwith­standing the accused had conceded that he was guilty of at least manslaughter - See paragraphs 1 to 28.

Criminal Law - Topic 4989.2

Appeals - Indictable offences - Powers of Court of Appeal - Power to limit scope of new trial - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4983 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Warsing (K.L.) (1998), 233 N.R. 319 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 1].

R. v. Pearson (E.) (1998), 233 N.R. 367 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 1].

R. v. Wade (W.) (1994), 69 O.A.C. 321; 89 C.C.C.(3d) 39 (C.A.), revd. [1995] 2 S.C.R. 737; 182 N.R. 387; 82 O.A.C. 182, refd to. [paras. 1, 6, 53].

R. v. Elliot, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 393; 18 N.R. 485; 38 C.C.C.(2d) 177, refd to. [paras. 11, 42].

R. v. Provo, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 3; 97 N.R. 209; 59 Man.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Kienapple, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729; 1 N.R. 322; 26 C.R.N.S. 1; 15 C.C.C.(2d) 524, refd to. [para. 12].

Kourtessis v. Minister of National Revenue et al., [1993] 2 S.C.R. 53; 153 N.R. 1; 27 B.C.A.C. 81; 45 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Meltzer and Laison, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1764; 96 N.R. 391, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Hinse (R.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 597; 189 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Stanley (1977), 36 C.C.C.(2d) 216 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Cook (1979), 47 C.C.C.(2d) 186 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. A.J.B. (1994), 120 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 147; 373 A.P.R. 147; 90 C.C.C.(3d) 210 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Geauvreau, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 485; 41 N.R. 292; 66 C.C.C.(2d) 375, refd to. [para. 18].

Reference Re R. v. Gorecki (No. 2) (1976), 32 C.C.C.(2d) 135 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Daviault (H.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 63; 173 N.R. 1; 64 Q.A.C. 81; 93 C.C.C.(3d) 21, refd to. [paras. 27, 75].

R. v. Cuerrier (H.G.), [1998] 2 S.C.R. 371; 229 N.R. 279; 111 B.C.A.C. 1; 181 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Hinchey (M.F.) and Hinchey (B.A.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1128; 205 N.R. 161; 147 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1; 459 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Bernardo (P.K.) (1997), 105 O.A.C. 244; 121 C.C.C.(3d) 123 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Palmer, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 759; 30 N.R. 181, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Chek TV Ltd. (1986), 27 C.C.C.(3d) 380 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. O'Connor (H.P.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 411; 191 N.R. 1; 68 B.C.A.C. 1; 112 W.A.C. 1; 103 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 39].

Thomson Newspapers Ltd. v. Director of Investigation and Research, Combines Investigation Act et al., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 425; 106 N.R. 161; 39 O.A.C. 161; 54 C.C.C.(3d) 417, refd to. [para. 39].

Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General) et al., [1993] 3 S.C.R. 519; 158 N.R. 1; 34 B.C.A.C. 1; 56 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 39].

Cunningham v. Canada, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 143; 151 N.R. 161; 62 O.A.C. 243; 80 C.C.C.(3d) 492, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Levogiannis, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 475; 160 N.R. 371; 67 O.A.C. 321; 85 C.C.C.(3d) 327, refd to. [para. 39].

Multiform Manufacturing Co. et autres v. R. et autres, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 624; 113 N.R. 373, refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Ruptash (1982), 68 C.C.C.(2d) 182 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Popoff (1960), 129 C.C.C. 250 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Maxwell (1990), 42 O.A.C. 71; 61 C.C.C.(3d) 289 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. Barnes (1990), 54 C.C.C.(3d) 368 (B.C.C.A.), affd. [1991] 1 S.C.R. 449; 121 N.R. 267, refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. Laverty (1990), 80 C.R.(3d) 231 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. Farinacci (L.W.) et al. (1993), 67 O.A.C. 197; 86 C.C.C.(3d) 32 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 68].

R. v. Noble (S.I.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 874; 210 N.R. 321; 89 B.C.A.C. 1; 145 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 68].

R. v. Potvin (R.), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 880; 155 N.R. 241; 66 O.A.C. 81; 83 C.C.C.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 68].

R. v. Buxbaum (1989), 33 O.A.C. 1; 70 C.R.(3d) 20 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 72].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 686(1), sect. 686(2) [paras. 9, 33]; sect. 686(3) [para. 33]; sect. 686(4), sect. 686(8) [paras. 9, 33].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Côté, Pierre-André, The Interpretation of Legislation in Canada (2nd Ed. 1991), pp. 236, 237 [para. 32]; 241 [para. 10].

Salhany, R.E., Canadian Criminal Pro­cedure (6th Ed. 1994) (looseleaf), p. 9-5 [para. 14].

Sopinka, J., and Gelowitz, M.A., The Conduct of an Appeal (1993), p. 111 [para. 14].

Counsel:

Sheldon Goldberg, for the appellant;

Gregory J. Fitch, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Sheldon Goldberg, Vancouver, B.C., for the appellant;

Ministry of the Attorney General, Vancouver, B.C., for the appellant.

This appeal was heard on June 19, 1998, before Lamer, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache and Binnie, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On December 17, 1998, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official languages and the following opinions were filed:

Lamer, C.J.C. (Cory, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache and Binnie, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 28;

L'Heureux-Dubé, J. (Gonthier and McLachlin, JJ., concurring), dissenting - see paragraphs 29 to 79.