R. v. Vaillancourt, (1981) 35 N.R. 597 (SCC)

• Judge: Dickson, Beetz, McIntyre, Chouinard and Lamer, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 27, 1981
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1981), 35 N.R. 597 (SCC);58 CCC (2d) 31;1981 CanLII 163 (SCC);19 CR (3d) 178;35 NR 597;[1981] SCJ No 8 (QL);120 DLR (3d) 740;[1981] 1 SCR 69

R. v. Vaillancourt (1981), 35 N.R. 597 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Vaillancourt

Indexed As: R. v. Vaillancourt

Supreme Court of Canada

Dickson, Beetz, McIntyre, Chouinard and Lamer, JJ.

January 27, 1981.

Summary:

This case arose out of the refusal of a juvenile to testify in a rape trial before the Quebec Superior Court. The trial judge found the juvenile guilty of contempt and imposed a punishment of detention for 2 months. The juvenile alleged that the trial judge lacked jurisdiction to punish a juvenile for contempt and appealed to the Quebec Court of Appeal.

The Quebec Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in a judgment dated October 27, 1978. The judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal is not reported in this series of reports. The juvenile appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal and affirmed the jurisdiction of the trial court to punish the juvenile for contempt of court.

Contempt - Topic 3047

Persons liable - Particular persons - Juveniles - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the jurisdiction of the Quebec Superior Court to punish a juvenile for contempt of court - The court rejected the contention that the juvenile should have been tried for contempt by the Quebec Youth Court.

Contempt - Topic 867

What constitutes contempt - Witnesses, testimony - Refusal to be sworn or testify - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the refusal to be sworn or testify constitutes a contempt of court committed "in the face" of the court (see paragraphs 10 and 34).

Contempt - Topic 6

General principles - Power of the courts - The Supreme Court of Canada referred to the inherent power of the courts to punish for contempt (see paragraphs 15 to 19 and 39 to 43).

Cases Noticed:

Re Gerson, Re Nightingale, [1946] S.C.R. 538, refd to. [paras. 10, 34].

R. v. Almon (1765), 97 E.R. 94, refd to. [paras. 15, 39].

Johnson, In re (1887), 20 Q.B. 68, refd to. [paras. 16, 40].

Morris v. Crown Office, [1970] 1 All E.R. 1079, refd to. [paras. 17, 41].

Duncan, In re, [1958] S.C.R. 41, refd to. [paras. 18, 42].

B, Re (1977), 30 C.C.C.(2d) 524, refd to. [paras. 22, 46].

Statutes Noticed:

Juvenile Delinquents Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. J-3, sect. 2(1) [paras. 5, 29].

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 8 [paras. 8, 32].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Halsbury's Laws of England (3d) vol. 8, page 5 [paras. 19, 43].

Counsel:

Guy Roy, for the appellant;

Paul Chevalier, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard by DICKSON, BEETZ, McINTYRE, CHOUINARD and LAMER, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada on December 16, 1980.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered by CHOUINARD, J., on January 27, 1981 - see paragraphs 1 to 24 (English language judgment) and paragraphs 25 to 48 (French language judgment).