R. v. Vaillancourt, (1987) 68 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 281 (SCC)

• Judge: Le Dain and La Forest, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: December 10, 1986
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1987), 68 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 281 (SCC);39 CCC (3d) 118;209 APR 281;3 WCB (2d) 133;[1987] 2 SCR 636;[1987] SCJ No 83 (QL);60 CR (3d) 289;32 CRR 18;JE 88-27;81 NR 115;47 DLR (4th) 399;[1987] CarswellQue 18;[1987] ACS no 83;10 QAC 161;68 Nfld & PEIR 281;1987 CanLII 2 (SCC)

R. v. Vaillancourt (1987), 68 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 281 (SCC);

    209 A.P.R. 281

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Yvan Vaillancourt v. Her Majesty The Queen and Attorney General for Ontario

(No. 18963)

Indexed As: R. v. Vaillancourt

Supreme Court of Canada

Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, Estey,

McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer, Wilson,

Le Dain and La Forest, JJ.

December 3, 1987.

Summary:

The accused and his accomplice committed an armed robbery of a pool hall. The accused was armed with a knife and his accomplice with a gun, which the accused believed to be unloaded. During the robbery the accomplice struggled with a patron, a shot was fired and the patron was killed. The accomplice escaped and the accused was arrested and charged with second degree murder as a party to the offence pursuant so ss. 21(2) and 213(d) of the Criminal Code. The Sessions Court judge and jury convicted the accused. The accused appealed on the ground that the judge's charge to the jury on the combined operation of ss. 213(d) and 21(2) of the Criminal Code was incorrect.

The Quebec Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at (1984), 31 C.C.C.(2d) 75, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction. The accused appealed on the ground, inter alia, that s. 213(d) of the Criminal Code was inconsistent with ss. 7 or 11(d) of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada, McIntyre, J., dissenting allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and ordered a new trial. The court held that s. 213(d) of the Code was inconsistent with ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter because the Crown did not have to prove the necessary mens rea for murder following proof that the accused participated in any of the enumerated illegal acts, to support a conviction for murder.

EDITOR'S NOTE:

This case originating in the Quebec courts is being reported in the Nfld. & P.E.I.R.'s and A.P.R.'s along with R. v. Laviolette so that readers will have the full reasons of the Supreme Court of Canada.

Civil Rights - Topic 3125

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - General - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4949 below].

Civil Rights - Topic 4949

Presumption of innocence - Removal element of intent - An accused and his accomplice committed an armed robbery of a pool hall - The accomplice was armed with a gun, which the accused believed to be unloaded - During the robbery the accomplice shot and killed a patron - The accused was convicted of second degree murder as a party to the offence pursuant to ss. 213(d) and 21(2) of the Criminal Code - The accused appealed on the ground that s. 213(d) of the Criminal Code, which required no proof of mens rea, was inconsistent with ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter - The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal - The court held that s. 213(d) violated the provisions of ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter - The court stated that the section had the effect of "catching an accused who performs one of the acts in paragraphs (a) and (d) [of s. 213] and thereby causes a death but who otherwise would have been acquitted of murder because he did not foresee and could not reasonably have foreseen that death would be likely to result" - The court held that s. 213(d) was not saved by s. 1 of the Charter.

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4949 above].

Criminal Law - Topic 1273

Murder - During commission of other offences - Intent - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4949 above].

Cases Noticed:

Sir John Chichester's Case (1647), Aleyn 12; 82 E.R. 888, refd to. [para. 18].

Hull's Case (1664), Kelyng, J. 40, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Plummer (1702), Kelyng, J. 109; 84 E.R. 1103, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Woodburne and Coke (1722), 16 St. Tr. 53, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Farrant, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 124; [1983] 3 W.W.R. 171; 46 N.R. 337; 21 Sask.R. 271; 4 C.C.C.(3d) 354; 32 C.R.(3d) 289; 147 D.L.R.(3d) 511, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Ancio, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 225; 52 N.R. 161; 10 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 39 C.R.(3d) 1; 6 D.L.R.(4th) 577, consd. [para. 21].

People v. Aaron (1980), 299 N.W. 2d 304 (Mich.), refd to. [para. 23].

State v. Doucette (1983), 470 A. 2d 676 (Vt.), refd to. [para. 23].

Reference re Validity of s. 5(a) of the Dairy Industry Act, [1949] S.C.R. 1, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. City of Sault Ste. Marie, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1299; 21 N.R. 295; 40 C.C.C.(2d) 353; 3 C.R.(3d) 30; 85 D.L.R.(3d) 161, consd. [para. 25].

Reference re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; [1986] 1 W.W.R. 481; 63 N.R. 266; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 48 C.R.(3d) 289; 24 D.L.R.(4th) 536; 36 M.V.R. 240, consd. [para. 26].

R. v. Dubois, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 350; [1986] 1 W.W.R. 193; 66 N.R. 289; 41 Man.R.(2d) 1; 25 C.C.C.(3d) 221; 51 C.R.(3d) 193; 26 D.L.R.(4th) 481, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335; 24 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 50 C.R.(3d) 1; 26 D.L.R.(4th) 200, consd. [para. 29].

R. v. Bezanson (1983), 61 N.S.R.(2d) 181; 133 A.P.R. 181; 8 C.C.C.(3d) 493, overruled [para. 31].

R. v. Swietlinski, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 956; 34 N.R. 569; 55 C.C.C.(2d) 481; 18 C.R.(3d) 231; 117 D.L.R.(3d) 285, refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Vasil, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 469; 35 N.R. 451; 58 C.C.C.(2d) 97; 20 C.R.(3d) 193; 121 D.L.R.(3d) 41, consd. [para. 36].

R. v. Trinneer, [1970] S.C.R. 638; [1970] 3 C.C.C. 289; 11 C.R.N.S. 110; 10 D.L.R.(3d) 568; 72 W.W.R.(N.S.) 677, consd. [para. 37].

R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd. [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; [1985] 3 W.W.R. 481; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 321, consd. [para. 40].

Rowe v. The King, [1951] S.C.R. 713, refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. Munro and Munro (1983), 8 C.C.C.(3d) 260, refd to. [para. 51].

Statutes Noticed:

British North America Act - see Constitution Act, 1867.

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1 [paras. 39, 40 42, 44]; sect. 7 [para. 5 et seq.]; sect. 11(d) [para. 5 et seq.].

Constitution Act, 1867, sect. 91(27) [para. 25].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 21(2) [para. 1, 5, 8, 14, 37, 50, 51, 54]; sect. 212 [para. 7, 9]; sect. 212(a)(i) [para. 10]; sect. 212(a)(ii) [para. 11]; sect. 212(c) [paras. 12, 28]; sect. 213 [para. 13, 15, 21, 25, 34, to 39]; sect. 213(d) [para. 1 et seq.].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Burns, Peter and R.S. Reid, Form Felony Murder to Accomplice Felong Attempted Murder: The Rake's Progress Compleat? (1977), 55 Can. Bar Rev. 75, pp. 103-105 [para. 21].

Canada, Law Reform Commission, Homicide (Working Paper 33) (1984), pp. 47-51 [para. 22].

Canada, Law Reform Commission, Recodifying Criminal Law (Report 30), vol. 1 (1986), p. 54 [para. 22].

Coke, Sir Edward, The Third Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England (1817), p. 56 [para. 17].

Dalton, Michael, Countrey Justice (1619), pp. 225-226 [para. 18].

East, Edward Hyde, Pleas of the Crown, vol. 1 (1803), p. 255 [para. 18].

Edwards, J. Ll.J., Constructive Murder in Canadian and English Law (1961), 3 Crim. L.Q. 481, pp. 506-509 [para. 21].

Foster, Sir Michael, Crown Law (1762), p. 258 [para. 18].

Grant, Isabel and A. Wayne Mackay, Constructive Murder and the Charter: In Search of Principle (1987), 25 Alta. L. Rev. 129 [paras. 21, 47].

Hale, Sir Matthew, History of the Pleas of the Crown, vol. 1 (1736), p. 475 [para. 18].

Hawkins, William, Pleas of the Crown, vol. 1 (1716) [para. 18].

Hooper, Anthony, Some Anomalies and Developments in the Law of Homicide (1967), 3 U.B.C. L. Rev. 55, pp. 75-77 [para. 21].

Lanham, David, Felony Murder - Ancient and Modern (1983), 7 Crim L.J. 90, pp. 92-94 [para. 18].

Mewett, Alan W. and Morris Manning, Criminal Law (2nd Ed. 1985), p. 545 [paras. 21, 53].

Parker, Graham, An Introduction to Criminal Law (1977), p. 145-148 [para. 21].

Perkins, Rollin M. and Ronald N. Boyce, Criminal Law (3rd Ed. 1982), p. 70 [para. 23].

Stephen, Sir James Fitzjames, History of the Criminal Law of England, vol. 3 (1883), pp. 57-58 [para. 18]; 75 [para. 19].

Stephen, Sir James Fitzjames, Stephen's Digest of the Criminal Law (9th Ed. 1950) [para. 19].

Stuart, Don, Canadian Criminal Law (1982), pp. 222-225 [para. 21].

Willis, John, Case and Comment (1951), 29 Can. Bar Rev. 784, pp. 794-796 [para. 21].

Counsel:

Michel Marchand and Michael Brind'Amour, for the appellant;

Bernard Laprade and Jean-François Dionne, for the respondent;

James K. Stewart, for the intervener, the Attorney General for Ontario.

Solicitors of Record:

Michel Marchand, Montréal, Quebec, for the appellant;

Bernard Laprade, Montréal, Quebec, for the respondent;

Ministry of the Attorney General, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener.

This appeal was heard on December 10, 1986, before Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer, Wilson, Le Dain and La Forest, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered on December 3, 1987, in both official languages, when the following opinions were filed:

Lamer, J. (Dickson, C.J.C., Estey and Wilson, J., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 43;

Beetz, J. (Le Dain, J., concurring) - see paragraphs 44 to 46;

La Forest, J. - see paragraphs 47 to 48;

McIntyre, J., dissenting - see paragraphs 49 to 54.

Chouinard, J., took no part in the judgment.