Canada's Court: Oral Arguments from the SCC

Ce c’est l’affaire judiciaire de Maxime Chicoine-Joubert contre sa majesté le roi.Cette affaire est une qui est allée à la Cour suprême du Canada. Cela implique un meurtre au deuxième degré et une agression armée.L'appel portait sur la question des instructions données au jury, qu'elles soient exactes, inexactes ou incomplètes.Mr. Chicoine-Joubert a soutenu que le juge avait commis une erreur en donnant des instructions au jury concernant l'accusation d'homicide involontaire, en particulier en répondant aux questions du jury, le juge ayant omis de mentionner la mens rea nécessaire.Au Cour d’appel du Québec, l’appel a été rejeté. La majorité soutient que les directives au jury étaient correctes. La dissidence a suggéré que le juge n'avait pas répondu de manière adéquate aux questions du jury concernant la mens rea requise pour meurtre au deuxième degré, ce qui a entraîné une possibilité raisonnable que les jurés aient mal compris.Le juge dissident a convenu que les instructions initiales ne contenaient aucune erreur, c'est lorsque le jury a posé des questions que celles-ci n'ont pas reçu de réponse correcte ou exhaustive. Plus précisément, c’était argué qu’il n'a pas donné d'instructions aux jurés sur l'homicide involontaire, aussi il ne leur a pas non plus donné d'exemple. Cependant, l’appel été rejeté.Lorsque cette affaire a été portée devant la Cour suprême du Canada, celle-ci a rejeté l'appel, confirmant la condamnation. Bien qu'un seul juge; Juge Jamal, a accepté la dissidence, la majorité a donné raison à la cour d'appel du Québec.

At trial where the central issue was whether or not the complainant had consented to sexual activity with the accused, the jury found the accused not guilty of sexual assault. The Crown appealed, citing what they believed to be two errors. First: The Crown argued that the trial judge had been too extreme in restricting what text messages between the accused and the complainant could be used at trial. Second: the Crown argued that the trial judge had improperly allowed the defence to illicit evidence of prior sexual activity of the complainant. The trial judge reasoned that this evidence was relevant to an inconsistency between the complainant’s evidence at trial, and her statement to police. The Crown maintained the evidence did not produce an inconsistency. A majority of the Court of Appeal found that the while the judge perhaps should have not have restricted the use of the text messages to that extent, the restrictions were a reasonable use of the trial judge’s powers to manage the trial, so a new trial was not warranted. The Court of Appeal also found that the evidence of prior sexual activity was properly allowed at trial, and was properly left with the jury to consider it as an inconsistency—despite the restriction by the trial judge that the Crown was not allowed to question the complainant about the inconsistency. The Crown’s appeal was dismissed. The dissenting judge at the Court of Appeal agreed with the Crown, and would have ordered a new trial.

Mr. Bilodeau was convicted by a jury as a party to manslaughter per s. 21(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada, after he directed his eldest son to bring a firearm to the scene. The eldest son followed his father’s directions, and upon his arrival, fatally shot the two victims. Mr. Bilodeau had chased the two victims in his truck, after he saw the two men, who were also in a truck, stop in front of his home. Mr. Bilodeau believed them to be thieves. At the end of the chase, the two trucks came to a stop near a T-intersection, where one of the two victims broke one of Mr. Bilodeau’s truck windows and began punching Mr. Bilodeau. The shooter, Mr. Bilodeau’s eldest son, arrived on scene and shot both victims, fatally. The eldest son was convicted of second-degree murder and manslaughter. Mr. Bilodeau appealed his conviction, citing errors in the jury’s instructions on the issue of whether or not Mr. Bilodeau formed a common intention with his son to commit an unlawful act. An unlawful act, which, in order to convict, must be one that the accused knew, or ought to have known was a probable consequence of the common intention. In other words, the path to conviction for Mr. Bilodeau rested on whether or not he knew, or ought to have known, that either of the victims could have been killed by instructing his son to bring a firearm to the scene of the altercation. A majority of the Alberta Court of Appeal found that while there were errors in the jury instructions, many of them actually benefited Mr. Bilodeau. A dissenting judge would have allowed the appeal, and would have ordered a new trial.

Au terme d’un procès devant jury présidé par le juge Blanchard de la Cour supérieure, l’appelant, Maxime Chicoine-Joubert, a été déclaré coupable d’un chef de meurtre au deuxième degré et d’un chef de voies de fait armées. En appel, M. Chicoine-Joubert soutenait que le juge avait erré dans ses directives relatives à l’homicide involontaire coupable et dans sa réponse aux questions du jury, en omettant de mentionner la mens rea nécessaire.La Cour d’appel du Québec, pour les motifs du juge Vauclair, auxquels a souscrit le juge Hamilton, a rejeté l’appel de M. Chicoine-Joubert. Elle a conclu que les directives au jury étaient correctes dans le contexte de l’affaire. Comme M. Chicoine-Joubert concédait sa culpabilité au verdict d’homicide involontaire, la question du jury sur cette infraction n’exigeait pas que le juge l’aborde. Le juge Bachand, dissident, aurait accueilli l’appel et ordonné la tenue d’un nouveau procès aux motifs que le juge du procès n’avait pas répondu adéquatement aux questions du jury et qu’il existait une possibilité raisonnable que les jurés se soient mépris sur la mens rea requise en matière de meurtre au deuxième degré. Le juge dissident est en accord avec la majorité pour conclure que les directives initiales n’étaient entachées d’aucune erreur justifiant l’intervention de la cour, mais il a conclu que le juge du procès ne s’était pas acquitté de son obligation de répondre de manière claire, correcte et complète aux questions des jurés. Jamais il n’a instruit les jurés sur l’homicide involontaire coupable et ne leur a donné aucun exemple.

During a search incident to arrest, Mr. Sabiston told police that he had a firearm in his backpack. The officers subsequently seized a loaded prohibited firearm. The Crown ultimately stayed the charges from Mr. Sabiston’s initial arrest and proceeded to trial on the firearms offences only.The trial judge concluded that the arrest and subsequent search were unlawful, resulting in ss. 8 and 9 Charter violations. However, on the s. 24(2) analysis, she found that the officers would have had a legal basis to detain Mr. Sabiston for investigative purposes, and that the firearm would have been discoverable during a search incident to such detention. The discoverability of the firearm mitigated the seriousness of the breaches. The firearm was admitted into evidence and Mr. Sabiston was convicted.A majority of the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan held that the trial judge erred in concluding that there was a reasonable suspicion that would justify an investigative detention, which is a question of law reviewable on a standard of correctness. This error undermined the trial judge’s s. 24(2) analysis. Upon a fresh s. 24(2) analysis, the majority excluded the firearm from evidence and substituted an acquittal. In dissent, Tholl J.A. would have dismissed the appeal. He held that there was no error in the trial judge’s conclusions with respect to a reasonable suspicion for investigative detention.The Crown appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada as of right.