R. v. Woodford (S.E.J.), (2016) 325 Man.R.(2d) 73 (QB)

• Judge: Greenberg, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Canada)
• Case Date: January 08, 2016
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (2016), 325 Man.R.(2d) 73 (QB);2016 MBQB 1

R. v. Woodford (S.E.J.) (2016), 325 Man.R.(2d) 73 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2016] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. JA.031

Her Majesty The Queen v. Shayla Elyshia June Woodford (accused)

(CR 14-01-33521; 2016 MBQB 1)

Indexed As: R. v. Woodford (S.E.J.)

Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench

Winnipeg Centre

Greenberg, J.

January 8, 2016.

Summary:

The accused (Shayla) got into a fight with her common law partner (Samantha) and Samantha's two sisters (Jasmine and Amber). In the course of that fight, Shayla stabbed Samantha with a knife, causing her death. She also stabbed Jasmine. Shayla was charged with second degree murder and assault with a weapon. She pleaded intoxication and self-defence. Alternatively, she pleaded that she did not have the mental state for murder and that, at most, her actions amounted to manslaughter. The self-defence provisions of the Criminal Code were amended after the charges arose. Shayla did not testify.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench found Shayla guilty of manslaughter. Shayla acted out of anger, not in self-defence. Her response was not proportionate to the force of the attack on her. While she caused the death by an unlawful act, the Court was not satisfied that the Crown had established that she had the necessary mental state for second degree murder.

Criminal Law - Topic 113

General principles - Mental disorder - Insanity, automatism, etc. - Intoxication - [See Criminal Law - Topic 1316 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 239

General principles - Statutory defences or exceptions - Self-defence - The accused was charged with second degree murder and assault with a weapon - Her position was that she was acting in self-defence - The self-defence provisions of the Criminal Code were amended after the charges arose - An issue was whether the case was governed by the new or the old provisions - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench agreed with the Manitoba case law that the provisions were retrospective - "[I]t is evident from the legislative history that Parliament's intent was not to change the substance of the law but to simplify the analytical framework for assessing the defence. As Parliament's intent was to make the law more user-friendly, it would make sense that it also intended the revised law to be immediately available to decision-makers." - On the facts of this case, under both the old and the new provisions, the Court came to the same conclusion on self-defence - The essence of the analysis was determining the reasonableness of the force used - While the new s. 34 specifically stated the factors to be considered, the jurisprudence had recognized those factors as relevant - Under both the old and the new provisions, the onus was on the Crown to disprove the elements of the defence beyond a reasonable doubt - See paragraphs 16 to 19.

Criminal Law - Topic 239

General principles - Statutory defences or exceptions - Self-defence - The accused (Shayla) got into a fight with her common law partner (Samantha) and Samantha's two sisters (Jasmine and Amber) - In the course of that fight, Shayla stabbed Samantha with a knife, causing her death - She also stabbed Jasmine - Shayla was charged with second degree murder and assault with a weapon - She pleaded self-defence - The self-defence provisions of the Criminal Code were amended after the charges arose - Shayla did not testify - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench held that Shayla was not acting in self-defence - Under the "new" s. 34 of the Criminal Code, the force used by Shayla was disproportionate and unreasonable in the circumstances - It was not unreasonable for Shayla to fight back when assaulted by the two sisters - However, her response was not proportionate to the force of the attack on her - She was able to break away from the two women and to move to the dresser where she retrieved a knife - The others were unarmed - There was no evidence that Shayla was defending herself from an assault by Samantha - The wound that caused Samantha's death was a penetrating wound (i.e., aggressive) - After stabbing Samantha, Shayla turned on her two sisters with the knife - It was not reasonable for her to do so, as the sisters were no longer assaulting her - By that time, the fight was over - The Court came to the same conclusion under the former s. 34 - Under both the old and the new provisions, the determinative issue was the reasonableness of the force used - Once the fight was effectively over, Shayla was acting out of anger and not in self-defence - See paragraphs 20 to 36.

Criminal Law - Topic 1263

Murder - General principles - Intention - [See Criminal Law - Topic 1316 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 1295

Offences against person and reputation - Murder - Defences - Self-defence - Excessive force - [See second Criminal Law - Topic 239 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 1316

Manslaughter - Unlawful act - What constitutes - The accused got into a fight with her common law partner and the partner's two sisters - In the course of that fight, the accused stabbed her partner with a knife, causing her death - The accused was charged with second degree murder - She pleaded intoxication and self-defence - The accused did not testify - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench found the accused guilty of manslaughter - The accused was clearly acting in response to an assault on her by the two sisters - Her response, while not reasonable, happened very quickly - The fact that the accused had been drinking and smoking marihuana, that she was acting in response to being assaulted by the two sisters, that she acted quickly, in the heat of the moment, and with a single stab wound that would have been accomplished with minimal force, raised a reasonable doubt about whether she acted with foresight as to the consequences of her actions - While satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused caused her partner's death by an unlawful act, the Court was not satisfied that the Crown had established that she had the necessary mental state for second degree murder - See paragraphs 38 to 55.

Criminal Law - Topic 1420

Offences against person and reputation - Assaults - Defence - Self-defence - [See second Criminal Law - Topic 239 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4370

Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Directions regarding self-defence - [See second Criminal Law - Topic 239 ].

Statutes - Topic 6714

Operation and effect - Commencement, duration and repeal - Retrospective and retroactive enactments - Retrospective or retroactive operation - Criminal or penal legislation - [See first Criminal Law - Topic 239 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Kwan (L.L.Y.) (1997), 123 Man.R.(2d) 81; 159 W.A.C. 81 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Lei - see R. v. Kwan (L.L.Y.).

R. v. Pandurevic (M.), [2013] O.T.C. Uned. 2978; 298 C.C.C.(3d) 504; 2013 ONSC 2978, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Atkinson (R.K.) et al. (2013), 297 Man.R.(2d) 298; 2013 MBQB 264, folld. [para. 17].

R. v. Knott (C.L.) (2014), 304 Man.R.(2d) 226; 2014 MBQB 72, folld. [para. 17].

R. v. Evans (D.J.) (2015), 367 B.C.A.C. 148; 631 W.A.C. 148; 321 C.C.C.(3d) 130; 2015 BCCA 46, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Bengy (K.) (2015), 335 O.A.C. 268; 325 C.C.C.(3d) 22; 2015 ONCA 397, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Green, 2015 QCCA 2109, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Hebert (D.M.), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 272; 197 N.R. 277; 77 B.C.A.C. 1; 126 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Richter (M.A.) (2014), 357 B.C.A.C. 305; 611 W.A.C. 305; 2014 BCCA 244, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Cinous (J.), [2002] 2 S.C.R. 3; 285 N.R. 1; 2002 SCC 29, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Kong (V.) (2005), 371 A.R. 90; 354 W.A.C. 90; 2005 ABCA 255, revd. [2006] 2 S.C.R. 347; 352 N.R. 365; 401 A.R. 327; 391 W.A.C. 327; 2006 SCC 40, refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Parker, 2013 ONCJ 195, agreed with [para. 35].

R. v. W.J.D., [2007] 3 S.C.R. 523; 369 N.R. 225; 302 Sask.R. 4; 411 W.A.C. 4; 2007 SCC 53, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Daley - see R. v. W.J.D.

R. v. Cassan (E.R.) (2012), 280 Man.R.(2d) 182; 548 W.A.C. 182; 2012 MBCA 46, affing. (2010), 260 Man.R.(2d) 37; 2010 MBQB 241, refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Owens (T.J.) (2014), 305 Man.R.(2d) 187; 2014 MBQB 95, affd. (2015), 323 Man.R.(2d) 123; 657 W.A.C. 123; 2015 MBCA 96, refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Walker (B.G.), [2008] 2 S.C.R. 245; 375 N.R. 228; 310 Sask.R. 305; 423 W.A.C. 305; 2008 SCC 34, refd to. [para. 51].

R. v. Cudjoe (R.) (2009), 251 O.A.C. 163; 2009 ONCA 543, refd to. [para. 52].

Counsel:

Daniel P. Chaput and Shannon D. Benevides, for the Crown;

Ian P. McNaught and Hillarie A. Tasche, for the accused.

This trial was heard before Greenberg, J., of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Winnipeg Centre, who delivered the following judgment and reasons, dated January 8, 2016.