Show Notes
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.
More from Canada's Court: Oral Arguments from the SCC
R.B.-C. was convicted of sexual assault. He is an Iranian citizen living in Canada on a post-graduation work permit. But his sentence was not imposed until more than 14 months after his conviction. When it finally was imposed, he received a conditional sentence of two years less a day, followed by probation.
Mr. Cope plead guilty to the aggravated assault of his common law partner. He had a significant criminal record, and a significant history of mental illness. Both he and his partner are Indigenous. The sentencing judge sentenced him to 5 years in custody for the aggravated assault, and eight months of custody for breaching the release orders he was subject to at the time of the aggravated assault on his partner.
The respondent was charged with multiple counts of sexual offences in relation to three separate complainants, and in addition was charged with one count of simple assault. At trial, he was found guilty of the assault, but acquitted of the sexual offences. The trial judge found there was reasonable doubt on whether the acts were for a sexual purpose, and whether there was an exploitative relationship between the parties. The Crown appealed two of the sexual offence counts, arguing that the trial judge erred in excluding images found on a USB of other women, who were mostly clothed or partially clothed, in relation to a sexual fantasy involving magic acts and sawing women in half. The Crown sought to introduce this evidence as a similar fact application per Handy, while the defence argued it was bad character evidence and would result in propensity reasoning. The respondent had asked the complainants if he could use his cardboard saw to pretend to cut them in half, or place it on their abdomen to take a photo.
The two respondents, jointly tried for a number of drug trafficking and related charges, argued that the delay in their case was unreasonable. While both the Crown and Defence agreed at trial that the delay was over the 18-month presumptive Jordan ceiling, the Crown sought to justify the delay by arguing that the complexity of the case necessitated the delay. The trial judge disagreed and stayed the charges. The trial judge found that the delay in the case was not justified as exceptional because of any complexity.
Despite the fact that the trial judge found that the appellant sent sexually explicit material to a minor, the trial judge was left in doubt as to whether (a) the identity of the appellant was made out on the video as an element of the offence, and (b) the specific intent to commit one of the enumerated offences, reasoning that it could have been simply a case of “flirtation”. The appellant was acquitted at trial of transmitting sexually explicit material to a person under the age of 16 for the purpose of facilitating the commission of either a sexual assault or the indecent act of exposing his genital organs to a person under 16 years of age for a sexual purpose.