Supreme Court of Canada Hearings (Floor Audio)

• Frédéric Rioux v. His Majesty the King (41362)

  Judge Gagnon of the Court of Québec acquitted the appellant, Frédéric Rioux, of the offence of sexual assault committed between August 1 and 2, 2019, in Bonsecours. Although the Crown had laid only one charge for a sexual assault that occurred in Bonsecours, the Crown’s evidence related to two instances of sexual intercourse, one in Magog and the other in Bonsecours. With regard to the first sexual act, which took place in a park in Magog, the judge found that the accused’s evidence was probative of the complainant’s consent and had not been contradicted by the complainant, who had no memory of the incident. The actus reus was therefore not established beyond a reasonable doubt. As for the second instance of sexual intercourse, which occurred at the accused’s house in Bonsecours, the judge found that the Crown had met its burden but that Mr. Rioux’s version raised a doubt concerning his honest but mistaken belief in the complainant’s consent.For the reasons given by Bachand J.A. and concurred in by Hamilton J.A., the Quebec Court of Appeal allowed the Crown’s appeal and ordered a new trial, but only with respect to Mr. Rioux’s criminal liability for the events that took place in the park in Magog on the evening of August 1, 2019, since the Crown had decided not to challenge the trial judge’s conclusion that Mr. Rioux had no criminally liability for the events in Bonsecours. The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge had made errors of law in analyzing the issue of the complainant’s capacity to consent to the sexual acts that had taken place in Magog. Those errors of law on the issue of the consensual nature of the sexual acts made it necessary to hold a new trial. Mainville J.A., dissenting, would have dismissed the appeal, as he was of the view that the trial judge had considered all the circumstantial evidence but had found that Mr. Rioux could nevertheless be acquitted based on the probative value of his testimony. Mainville J.A. expressed serious reservations about the validity of the Crown’s appeal with regard to events that were not part of the charge, given that the accused had been acquitted of the offence directly covered by the indictment. He added that it was not appropriate to order a new trial when Mr. Rioux would be tried again for an offence of which he had been finally acquitted. Argued Date 2025-01-22 Keywords Criminal law — Evidence — Assessment — Sexual assault — Capacity to consent — Absence of direct evidence from complainant — Consideration of all evidence — Appeal — Powers of Court of Appeal — Charge — Order limiting scope of new trial — Whether majority of Court of Appeal erred in law in holding that trial judge had failed to consider all evidence on ultimate issue of guilt or innocence — If trial judge made error of law, whether majority erred in law in failing to address question of whether respondent had shown with reasonable degree of certainty that verdict would not necessarily have been same without that error in light of trial judge’s conclusion that he believed appellant. Notes (Quebec) (Criminal) (As of Right) (Publication ban in case) Language Floor Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

  --------  

  1:15:33
• Roger Patrick Bilodeau v. His Majesty the King (41320)

  The appellant, Roger Patrick Bilodeau, was found guilty by a jury of two counts of manslaughter for the shooting deaths of two men. He was found liable as a party under s. 21(2) of the Criminal Code, for having formed an intention to carry out an unlawful purpose common with his son, who shot the deceased. He appealed his convictions, arguing that the jury was improperly instructed, including regarding the common unlawful purpose. The majority of the Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. It concluded that many errors identified benefited the appellant, often by imposing on the Crown an unduly onerous burden. No substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred: s. 686(1)(b)(iii) should be applied. Pentelechuck J.A., dissenting, would have allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial. In her view, there were additional legal errors in the charge not identified by the majority, one or more of which were not harmless, precluding a route under s. 686(1)(b)(iii). There was a real risk that the common unlawful purpose alleged by the Crown merged into the secondary offence of murder. The dissenting judge was not convinced that the evidence was so overwhelming that, notwithstanding the serious nature of the error, a reasonable and properly instructed jury would inevitably have convicted. Argued Date 2025-02-19 Keywords Criminal law — Charge to jury — Party liability — Common unlawful purpose — Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that the instruction to the jury with regard to the appellant’s alleged liability as a party, pursuant to s. 21(2) of the Criminal Code, contained no prejudicial error — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 21(2). Notes (Alberta) (Criminal) (As of Right) Language Floor Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

  --------  

  1:13:52
• Maxime Chicoine-Joubert v. His Majesty the King (41262)

  After a jury trial before Blanchard J. of the Superior Court, the appellant, Maxime Chicoine-Joubert, was convicted of one count of second degree murder and one count of assault with a weapon. On appeal, Mr. Chicoine-Joubert argued that the judge had erred in his instructions regarding manslaughter and in his answer to questions from the jury by failing to mention the necessary mens rea.The Quebec Court of Appeal, for the reasons of Vauclair J.A., Hamilton J.A. concurring, dismissed Mr. Chicoine-Joubert’s appeal. It found that the instructions to the jury were correct in the context of the case. Since Mr. Chicoine-Joubert conceded his guilt for the manslaughter verdict, the question from the jury on that offence did not require that the judge address it. Bachand J.A., dissenting, would have allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial on the grounds that the trial judge had not adequately answered the questions from the jury and that there was a reasonable possibility that the jurors had misunderstood the requisite mens rea for second degree murder. Although the dissenting judge agreed with the majority that the initial instructions contained no error warranting the court’s intervention, he found that the trial judge had not fulfilled his obligation to answer questions from the jury clearly, correctly and comprehensively. He did not instruct the jurors on manslaughter or provide them with an example. Argued Date 2025-02-20 Keywords Criminal law — Charge to jury — Questions from jury — Manslaughter — Whether trial judge erred in his instructions and in his answer to questions from jury regarding offence of manslaughter, offence that appellant does not acknowledge having committed — Whether majority of Court of Appeal made reviewable error in declining to order new trial. Notes (Quebec) (Criminal) (As of Right) Language Floor Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

  --------  

  48:59
• His Majesty the King v. Lucas Hanrahan (41220)

  The respondent was found not guilty of sexual assault following a jury trial. Consent was the central issue. The Crown appealed the respondent’s acquittal, submitting that the trial judge erred in law by restricting Crown counsel’s examination of the complainant on her prior statements (text messages that were exchanged between the complainant and the respondent after the event) and erred in law in rulings related to the admission of evidence about the complainant’s prior sexual history. A majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed the Crown’s appeal. It concluded that although the trial judge placed restrictions on the text messages exhibit during direct examination of the complainant in excess of what was necessary to prevent the jury from improperly using the text messages, his interventions were within the reasonable exercise of his trial management power. The majority also concluded the trial judge made no error in finding that the prior sexual history evidence was capable of being admissible. There was no error regarding the judge’s finding of an inconsistency between the complainant’s evidence on cross-examination and her prior statement to the police. The trial judge did not err in admitting the prior sexual history evidence and in refusing to allow Crown counsel to question the complainant about the inconsistency on re-examination. Knickle J.A., dissenting, would have allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial. She concluded that the trial judge erred in his treatment of the text messages conversation evidence and therefore improperly restricted the Crown’s direct examination of the complainant. The trial judge also erred in admitting evidence of the complainant’s previous sexual history for the purpose of cross-examining her on alleged inconsistencies, because the complainant’s testimony was not inconsistent with what she had stated to police and she had not put her previous sexual history with the respondent in issue. The trial judge also erred by denying Crown counsel’s re-examination of the complainant. These errors had a material bearing on the verdict of acquittal rendered by the jury. Argued Date 2025-01-21 Keywords Criminal law — Evidence — Admissibility — Complainant’s prior sexual history — Text messages — Whether the majority of the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the prior sexual history evidence of the complainant was properly admitted by (i) deferring to the trial judge’s finding that there was an inconsistency; (ii) finding that the evidence met the threshold of legitimate relevance; and (iii) finding that the trial judge properly exercised his discretion by prohibiting the Crown from asking the complainant questions on redirect about the prior sexual history — Whether the majority erred in holding that the trial judge’s restrictive treatment of text messages was a reasonable exercise of his trial management powers — Whether the errors had a material bearing on the acquittal and the test in R. v. Graveline, 2006 SCC 16, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 609, has been met — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 276. Notes (Newfoundland & Labrador) (Criminal) (As of Right) (Publication ban in case) Language Floor Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

  --------  

  1:13:57
• His Majesty the King v. Wayne Lester Singer (41090)

  On March 20, 2019, at approximately 11:00 p.m., police officers received a tip that Mr. Singer was driving a truck and the caller believed that he was intoxicated. More than an hour later, an officer observed a vehicle matching the vehicle description given by the caller. The truck was parked on a residential driveway. Its lights were on and its ignition was running. Officers could not see anyone in the vehicle from the road. They entered the driveway and approached the vehicle. They observed a single occupant sleeping in the driver’s seat. They knocked on the driver’s window and got no response. They opened the front doors and immediately smelled a strong odour of alcohol. The officers reached into the vehicle and shook Mr. Singer awake. Mr. Singer had red, bloodshot eyes and there was a strong odour of alcohol coming from his breath. Cst. Lapointe detained Mr. Singer and administered a roadside breath sample. Mr. Singer failed the roadside breath test. He was arrested for care or control of a motor vehicle with an excessive blood alcohol level. At a police station, he declined to provide a breath sample. Mr. Singer was charged with failing or refusing to comply with a demand for a breath sample made by a peace officer. At trial, Mr. Singer argued that his s. 8 Charter rights were breached and the evidence should be excluded. The trial judge dismissed the Charter application and convicted Mr. Singer of failing or refusing to comply with a demand to provide a breath sample. The Court of Appeal held that the police officers’ conduct constituted a search in breach of s. 8 of the Charter. The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal, excluded the evidence and entered an acquittal. Argued Date 2025-02-18 Keywords Charter of Rights and Freedoms — Search and seizure — Criminal law — Exclusion of evidence — Implied license to knock — Does the driver of a vehicle parked in the driveway of a dwelling house have a privacy interest protected by s. 8 of the Charter such that police officers responding to a complaint of impaired driving are prohibited from approaching the vehicle, communicating with the driver and observing signs of impairment — If the police conducted a search within the meaning of s. 8 of the Charter, was that search unreasonable — If the police conducted an unreasonable search, should the evidence obtained from the search be excluded? Notes (Saskatchewan) (Criminal) (By Leave) Language Floor Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

  --------  

  2:50:37

More Government podcasts

Trending Government podcasts

About Supreme Court of Canada Hearings (Floor Audio)