- LSA

DROIT PÉNAL
Thierry Nadon – Hiver 2013
CHAPTER ONE: SOURCES OF CRIMINAL LAW (3-44) .................................................................. 5
I. DEFINITION ........................................................................................................................................................5
II. THE CRIMINAL LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION (6) ...........................................................................................5
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (6) ..........................................................................................5
The Criminal Law and the Division of Powers (8) ...........................................................................................5
III. CODIFICATION : THE CRIMINAL LAW AS A STATUTE (16) ..............................................................................6
Common Law offences and defences (18) .......................................................................................................6
Vagueness, Overbreadth, and Certainty in the Criminal Law (26) ..................................................................6
Nova Scotia Pharmaceuticals, 1992 (26) .....................................................................................................6
R v Heywood, 1994 (28) ...............................................................................................................................6
Construction or Interpretation of the Criminal Code (37) ................................................................................6
R v Pare, 1987 (37) ......................................................................................................................................7
CHAPTER TWO: LIMITS ON CRIMINAL LAW (45-110) ................................................................. 7
I. THE LIMITS ON THE CRIMINAL LAW: DEBATING THE HARM PRINCIPLE (45) ...................................................7
Malmo-Levine, 2003 (57) .............................................................................................................................7
R v Labaye, 2005 (70)...................................................................................................................................8
II. PROSTITUTION AND THE CRIMINAL LAW (83) .................................................................................................8
Standing Committing on Justice and Human Rights, 2006 (90)...................................................................9
III. HATE SPEECH (96) ...........................................................................................................................................9
R v Keegstra, 1990 (97) ................................................................................................................................9
R v Zundel, 1992 (102) .................................................................................................................................9
CHAPTER THREE : POLICE POWERS (111-199) .............................................................................. 9
I. MODELS OF THE CRIMINAL PROCESS (111) ....................................................................................................10
S. 7 & 10 Charter .......................................................................................................................................10
R. v. Côté, 2011 SCC 46 (external) ............................................................................................................10
II. QUESTIONING SUSPECTS (116) ......................................................................................................................10
The Common Law Governing Confessions (116) ..........................................................................................10
Confessions and the Right to Counsel (118) ..................................................................................................11
R v Sinclair, 2010 (external).......................................................................................................................11
Confessions and the Right to Silence (129) ....................................................................................................12
R v Singh, 2007 (133) .................................................................................................................................13
III. ENTRAPMENT OU PROVOCATION POLICIÈRE (141) .......................................................................................14
R v Mack, 1988 (151) .................................................................................................................................14
IV. SEARCH AND SEIZURE (151) .........................................................................................................................15
S. 8 Charter ................................................................................................................................................15
Hunter v Southam, 1984 (151) ...................................................................................................................15
R v Collins, 1987 (165) ...............................................................................................................................16
Reasonable Expectation of Privacy (155) ......................................................................................................16
S. 24(2) .......................................................................................................................................................16
R v Wong, 1990 (155) .................................................................................................................................16
R v Tessling, 2004 (161) .............................................................................................................................17
V. DETENTION AND ARREST (168) .....................................................................................................................18
S. 9 Charter ................................................................................................................................................18
Constitutional protection (170) .......................................................................................................................19
R v Grant, 2009 (171) .................................................................................................................................19
Detention powers (178) ..................................................................................................................................20
R v Mann, 2004 (179) .................................................................................................................................20

Jonathan Brosseau-Rioux
2
Arrest Powers (184) and Powers Incident to Arrest (186)..............................................................................21
Cloutier v Langlois, 2004 (186) .................................................................................................................21
R v Golden, 2001 (187)...............................................................................................................................22
VI. SOURCES OF POLICE POWERS AND THE ANCILLARY POWERS DEBATE (191) ..............................................22
CHAPTER FOUR : THE TRIAL PROCESS (199-300)....................................................................... 22
II. THE ROLE OF THE PROSECUTOR AND DEFENSE COUNSEL (248)....................................................................22
Crown Counsel (248) and Disclosure (250) ...................................................................................................22
Plea Bargaining (254) .....................................................................................................................................23
Defense Counsel (254) and Disclosure (250) .................................................................................................23
III. PRE-TRIAL RELEASE AND BAIL (259) ...........................................................................................................23
IV. THE JURY (271).............................................................................................................................................23
Requiring Trial by Jury (271) .........................................................................................................................23
Selecting Jury (272) ........................................................................................................................................23
Challenges for Cause (273) ............................................................................................................................23
Jury Unanimity (278)......................................................................................................................................23
V. QUANTUM AND BURDEN OF PROOF (279) .....................................................................................................24
Burden of Proof (279).....................................................................................................................................24
Woolmington v DPP, 1935 (279) ...............................................................................................................24
R v Oakes, 1986 (284) ................................................................................................................................24
R v Whyte, 1988 (289) ................................................................................................................................25
R v Keegstra, 1990 (290) ............................................................................................................................25
R v Downey, 1992 (291) .............................................................................................................................25
Quantum of proof (292) ..................................................................................................................................26
R v Lifchus, 1997 (292)...............................................................................................................................26
R v Starr, 2000 (294) ..................................................................................................................................26
CHAPTER SIX : RESPONSABILITÉ ABSOLUE ET STRICTE (377-418) ..................................... 27
I. INTERET PUBLIC OU INFRACTIONS CRIMINELLES REELLES (378) ....................................................................27
Beaver v The Queen, 1957 (378) ................................................................................................................27
R v Pierce Fisheries, 1971 (384) ................................................................................................................28
R v Wholesale Travel Group Inc., 1991 (385) ............................................................................................28
II. ÉMERGENCE DE LA RESPONSABILITE STRICTE (388)......................................................................................28
R v City of Sault Ste. Marie, 1978 (388) .....................................................................................................29
III. CONSIDÉRATIONS CONSTITUTIONNELLES (395) ...........................................................................................29
Reference re Section 94(2) of the BC Motor Vehicle Act, 1985 (395) ........................................................29
R v 1260448 Ontario (William Cameron Trucking), 2003 ; R v Transport Robert, 2003 (401) ................30
R v Wholesale Travel Group Inc., 1991 (406) ............................................................................................31
CHAPTER FIVE: CONDUCT OR ACTUS REUS (301-375) ............................................................. 32
I. CONTEMPORANEITY (302) ...............................................................................................................................32
Fagan v Commissioner of Metropolitan Police, 1969 (302) ......................................................................32
R v Miller (CA), 1982 (305) ........................................................................................................................33
R v Miller (HoL), 1983 (306) ......................................................................................................................33
*R v Cooper, 1993 (307) ............................................................................................................................33
R v Williams, 2003 (309) ............................................................................................................................33
II. VOLUNTARINESS (310) ...................................................................................................................................34
R v Larsonneur, 1933 (311) ........................................................................................................................34
Kilbride v Lake, 1962 (311) ........................................................................................................................34
R v King, 1962 (313)...................................................................................................................................34
R v Ruzic, 2001 (315) .................................................................................................................................35
III. ACTION, OMISSIONS AND STATUS (316) .......................................................................................................35

Jonathan Brosseau-Rioux
3
R v Browne, 1997 (319) ..............................................................................................................................35
R v Thornton, 1991 (323) ...........................................................................................................................36
IV. CIRCUMSTANCES (333) .................................................................................................................................36
V. CONSEQUENCES AND CAUSATION (337) ........................................................................................................36
Factual cause ..................................................................................................................................................37
R v Winning, 1973 (338) .............................................................................................................................37
Legal cause .....................................................................................................................................................37
Smithers v The Queen, 1978 (339) .............................................................................................................37
R v Cribbin, 1994 (344) ..............................................................................................................................38
Multiple causes ...............................................................................................................................................38
Pagett v The Queen, 1983 (349) .................................................................................................................38
R v SR(J), 2008 ...........................................................................................................................................38
R v Reid & Stratton, 2003 (353) .................................................................................................................39
R v Harbottle, 1993 (358) ...........................................................................................................................39
*R v Nette, 2001 (363) ................................................................................................................................40
*R c Bouchard, (2007 QCCQ 1882) ..........................................................................................................41
CHAPTER SEVEN: FAULT OR MENS REA (419-499) ..................................................................... 44
I. LEGISLATIVE DEFINITIONS OF FAULT (421) ....................................................................................................44
II. SUBJECTIVE STATES OF FAULT (426) .............................................................................................................44
R v Buzzanga and Durocher, 1979 (427) ...................................................................................................44
R v Tennant and Naccarato, 1975 (427) ....................................................................................................45
A. Intention/Wilful conduct (427) ..................................................................................................................45
R v Steane, 1947 (429) ................................................................................................................................45
R v Hibbert, 1995 (432) ..............................................................................................................................47
R v Buzzanga and Durocher, 1979 (436) ...................................................................................................47
B. Actual Knowledge (442) ............................................................................................................................48
R v Théroux, 1993 (442) .............................................................................................................................48
C. Recklessness and Wilful Blindness (446) ..................................................................................................49
R v Sansregret, 1985 (447) .........................................................................................................................49
R v Briscoe, 2010 (448) ..............................................................................................................................50
III. OBJECTIVE STANDARDS OF FAULT (449) .....................................................................................................51
Criminal Negligence (450) .............................................................................................................................51
R v Tutton and Tutton, 1989 (450) .............................................................................................................51
R v Waite, 1989 (454) .................................................................................................................................52
R v Gingrich and McLean, 1991 (455) .......................................................................................................53
R v Hundal, 1995 (456) ..............................................................................................................................53
Unlawful act manslaughter (457) ...................................................................................................................54
R v Creighton, 1993 (457) ..........................................................................................................................54
R v Beatty, 2008) (471) ...............................................................................................................................56
R v Roy, 2012 SCC 26 (external source) ....................................................................................................57
R. c. Bélanger, 2013 CSC 7 (external source) ............................................................................................57
Salame v R, 2010 QCCA 64 (external source) ...........................................................................................58
IV. CONSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS (482) ..................................................................................................58
Vaillancourt v The Queen, 1987 (703) .......................................................................................................58
R v Martineau, 1990 (711) .........................................................................................................................59
V. MISTAKE OF FACT (491) ................................................................................................................................60
Beaver v The Queen, 1957 (491) ................................................................................................................61
Pappajohn v The Queen, 1980 (498) ..........................................................................................................61
R v Bailey, 2006 ABPC 47 (external source) .............................................................................................62
CHAPTER EIGHT : IGNORANCE OF THE LAW (501-524) ........................................................... 62

Jonathan Brosseau-Rioux
4
S. 19 CC ......................................................................................................................................................63
I. MISTAKEN BELIEFS ABOUT THE LAW AND PARTICULAR FAULT ELEMENTS (502) ........................................63
R v Howson, 1966 (502) .............................................................................................................................63
R v Docherty, 1989 (503) ...........................................................................................................................63
Jones and Pamajewon v The Queen, 1991 (504) .......................................................................................63
II. ERREUR DE FAIT ET ERREUR DE DROIT (505) .................................................................................................64
R v Prue and Baril, 1979 (505) ..................................................................................................................64
R v MacDougall, 1982 (504) ......................................................................................................................64
III. THE DEFENCE OF OFFICIALY INDUCED ERROR (506) ...................................................................................64
Molis v The Queen, 1980 (506) ..................................................................................................................65
Forster v The Queen, 1992 (506) ...............................................................................................................65
R v Jorgensen, 1995 (508) ..........................................................................................................................66
Lévis (Ville de) v Tétreault, 2006 (514) ......................................................................................................67
IV. MISTAKE OF LAW AND CONSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS (516) .............................................................67
R v Pontes, 1995 (516) ...............................................................................................................................67
CHAPTER NINE: PARTICIPATION (525-570) .................................................................................. 68
S. 21(1) CC .................................................................................................................................................69
S. 21(2) CC .................................................................................................................................................69
R. c. Bilodeau, 2011 QCCQ 9380 ..............................................................................................................69
S. 22 CC ......................................................................................................................................................70
I. PRINCIPALS: S. 21(1)(A) (526) .........................................................................................................................70
R v Thatcher, 1987 (526) ............................................................................................................................70
II. AIDING AND ABETTING: S. 21(1)(B) & (C) (531) ............................................................................................70
R v Greyeyes, 1997 (531) ...........................................................................................................................71
***Dunlop and Sylvester v The Queen, 1979 (537) ...................................................................................71
R v Jackson, 2007 (542) .............................................................................................................................72
R v Helsdon, 2007 (545) .............................................................................................................................72
R v Palombi, 2007 (550) .............................................................................................................................73
III. COMMON INTENTION: S. 21(2) (553) ............................................................................................................73
*R v. Kirkness 1990, (553) .........................................................................................................................74
R v Logan, 1990 (561) ................................................................................................................................74
IV. COUNSELLING AS FORM OF PARTICIPATION: S. 22(1) (564) .........................................................................75
R v O’Brien, 2007 (564) .............................................................................................................................75
V. ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT: S. 23(1) (566) ................................................................................................75
S. 240 CC ....................................................................................................................................................76
S. 23(1) CC .................................................................................................................................................76
R v Duong, 1998, (566) ..............................................................................................................................76
CHAPTER TEN: INCHOATE OFFENCES (571-606) ........................................................................ 77
I. ATTEMPT (572) ................................................................................................................................................77
Actus Reus (572) ............................................................................................................................................77
R v Cline, 1956 (572) ..................................................................................................................................77
***Deutsch v The Queen, 1986 (573) ........................................................................................................77
Mens rea (574) ................................................................................................................................................78
R v Ancio, 1984 (574) .................................................................................................................................78
R v Logan, 1990 (576) ................................................................................................................................78
R v Sorrell and Bondett, 1978 (578) ...........................................................................................................79
Impossibilité (579) ..........................................................................................................................................79
*US v Dynar, 1997 (579) ............................................................................................................................79
II. INCITEMENT (588) ..........................................................................................................................................81
R v Hamilton. 2005 (588) ...........................................................................................................................81

Jonathan Brosseau-Rioux
5
St-Jacques c R, 2008 QCCS 6631 ..............................................................................................................82
III. CONSPIRACY (594) ........................................................................................................................................84
465 CC ........................................................................................................................................................84
United States v Dynar, 1997 (595) .............................................................................................................85
IV. COMBINING INCHOATE FORMS OF LIABILITY (600) ......................................................................................86
R v Déry, 2006 (600) ..................................................................................................................................86
V. COMPLETE OFFENCES BASED ON INCHOATE LIABILTY (602) .........................................................................86
R v Legare, 2009 (603) ...............................................................................................................................86
CHAPTER FOURTEEN: PROVOCATION (737-766) ........................................................................ 87
________________________________________
CHAPTER ONE: SOURCES OF CRIMINAL LAW (3-44)
I. Definition
 « Droit criminel » : mala in se (wrong in itself);
 « Droit pénal » : malum prohibitum (wrong because prohibited).
II. The Criminal Law and the Constitution (6)
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (6)
 The Charter infuses almost every aspect of Canadian criminal law, as it applies to the activities of Canadian
legislatures and government officials (ss. 7 to 14).
The Criminal Law and the Division of Powers (8)
 The CA 1867, at s. 91(27), vests in the federal Parliament the exclusive jurisdiction over the Criminal law,
which was given a broad meaning by the Privy Council in Russell v The Queen (1882), and to establish and
maintain penitentiaries under s. 91(28).
 The provinces have jurisdiction over the constitution of courts of criminal jurisdiction (s. 91(27)), the
imposition of penalties in order to enforce provincial laws (s. 92(15)), the administration of justice (s.
92(14)), the establishment of prisons for inmates serving two years less a day, and asylums (s. 92(7)), as well
as property and civil rights (s. 92(13)).
 The federal government appoints judges to higher superior trial courts under s. 96 of the CA 1867; as well as
appeal court and SCC judges, while the provinces appoint judges to provincial courts where criminal trials
are held.
 Rarely provincial regulation overlaping slightly with Canadian Criminal Law will be held anticonstitutional
as showed by a trio of cases in the 1960’s (O’grady v Sparling, Stephens v The Queen and Smith v The
Queen) and recent cases (Dupond, McNeil, Schneider).
 Dickson, dissenting in R v Hauser, said: “While the criminal law was to be enacted by the federal
Parliament, its administration was to be left in th hands of local and provincial authorities ‘where it could be
more flexibly administered’ ” (13).
 Prior to the enactment of the Charter, federal jurisdiction over criminal law was one of the only ways to
strike down provincial legislation in the provinces, as illustrated in Switzman v Elbing (1957), in which the
SCC deemed that a ban on communist activity through the “Padlock Act” was criminal in nature, and ultra
vires provincial jurisdiction.