Landmark CASE R. v. Vaillancourt The appellant was armed with a knife and his (1987), 60 C.R. accomplice with a gun. During the robbery, (3d) 298 (S.C.C.) the appellant remained near the front of the hall while the accomplice went to the back. The accomplice got into an altercation and shot and killed one of the pool hall's clients Facts: The appellant was convicted of The accomplice managed to escape and has murder under s. 230 of the Criminal Code, never been found. The appellant was arrested which states: at the scene. Culpable homicide is murder where a In the course of his testimony, the appellant person causes the death of a human being said that he and his accomplice had agreed to while committing or attempting to commit this robbery armed only with knives. commit... (343) robbery, whether or not On the night of the robbery, however, the the person means to cause death to any accomplice arrived with a gun. The appellant human being and whether or not he knows said that he insisted that the gun be unloaded that death is likely to be caused to any The accomplice removed three bullets from human being. if (d) he uses a weapon or the gun and gave them to the appellant, The has it upon his person (i) during or at the appellant placed the bullets in his glove. time he commits or attempts to commit the where they were later found by police. The offence, or (ii) during or at the time of his appellant testified that, at the time of the flight after committing or attempting to robbery, he was certain that the gun was commit the offence, and the death ensues unloaded. as a consequence. The appellant and an accomplice Issue: Does s. 230 of the Criminal Code committed an armed robbery in a pool hall. violate ss. 7 or 11(d) of the Canadian Charterof Rights and Freedoms, and should it, there- on anything less than proof beyond a reason- fore, be struck down? able doubt of subjective foresight. The 7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty presumption of innocence in s. 11() of the and security of the person and the right not Charter requires that an accused be presumed to be deprived thereof except in accordance innocent until proven guilty beyond a reason- with the principles of fundamental justice able doubt. Section 230 requires the accused to 11. Any person charged with an offence has disprove on a balance of probabilities an essen- the right tial element of the offence. In the case of a d) to be presumed innocent until proven homicide where the penalty is life, an accused guilty according to law in a fair and public must not be deprived of his liberty without hearing by an independent and impartial adequate proof of intent. It is not enough that tribunal the accused ought to have known harm might ensue: the Crown must prove that the accused Held: The appellant was convicted under knew hann would ensue s 230 of the Criminal Code. This section is inconsistent with sections 7 and 11(d) of the Dissent: (Mcintyre J.) "There was, in this Charter and therefore is of no force or effect case, evidence of active participation in the The appellant is entitled to a new trial. commission of the robbery, the underlying offence. It must be accepted that there is a Ratio Decidendi: (Lamer ].) Section 230 of principle long accepted of joint criminal the Criminal Code determines that an accused liability" No principle of fundamental justice who is an accomplice to a crime in which there is offended if parliament classifies as murder is a homicide is guilty of murder whether the serious criminal conduct involving the accused killed the victim or not. The punish- commission of a crime of violence that results ment for murder is the most severe in our in the killing of a human being. One who joins society Since murder is distinguished from a common purpose to commit a serious manslaughter by only the mental element with offence and who knows or ought to know that respect to death, it is clear that there must be his accomplice has upon his person a weapon some special mental element with respect to the must bear the risk of death. Section 230 of the death before a culpable homicide can be treated Criminal Code does not violate the principles as a murder. It is a principle of fundamental of fundamental justice and should not be justice that a conviction for murder cannot rest struck down.CASE Murdock v. Richards Relief Sought: Damages for assault. et al., (1954) 1 D.L.R. 766 Issue: Was the punishment carried out reasonable or excessive? (N.S.S.C.) Held: For the defendant. Action dismissed Facts: The defendant teacher had some diffi- with costs. culty in class with one of her pupils, the infant plaintiff. (In civil law, the term "infant" is used Ratio Decidendi: (Doull J.) A schoolteacher to describe anyone under the age of 18) The is entitled to administer reasonable chastise defendant caught the plaintiff by her arm or ment, including reasonable corporal punish collar and pulled her from her seat. The plain- ment, to a pupil for breach of regulations, The tiff resisted and had to be pulled or pushed punishment must not be of a kind likely to toward the front of the room. The plaintiff injure the child seriously or permanently struck her head against a desk by accident or Punishment, however, may be excessive and as a result of the plaintiff's own resistance and unreasonable even though no serious o not as a result of the act of the defendant. it permanent injury results. There is a sense was alleged that the defendant struck the which parents, in sending their children plaintiff on the palm of the hand with a strap school, delegate to teachers their authority a The defendant agrees that the plaintiff was far as is necessary for the welfare of the chil struck by the defendant but disputes the (known as the delegation theory). Therefore number of times the plaintiff was struck teachers are entitled to administer reasonabl There was no conclusive evidence from the punishment to children. A parent or one wh witnesses present on the number of strap- stands in place of a parent may use reasonabl pings. The plaintiff suffered no permanent or force, including corporal punishment, fo serious injuries as a result of being pulled from discipline and control. A schoolteacher has th her seat or from the strappings to the hand. same authority. Although the delegation Section 43 of the Criminal Code of Canada theory provides justification for this, it is als allows parents and schoolteachers to use force the right of the teacher to use reasonab by way of correction as long as the force does corporal discipline to maintain order in th not exceed what is reasonable under the school circumstances