Docket
39701
Her Majesty the Queen v. Daniel Brunelle
(Quebec) (Criminal) (As of Right)
Judgments on applications for leave to appeal are rendered by the Court, but are not necessarily unanimous.
| Date | Proceeding | Filed By (if applicable) |
|---|---|---|
| 2022-04-07 | Appeal closed | |
| 2022-04-06 | Transcript received, 44 pages paper copies rec'd: 2022-04-21 |
|
| 2022-03-15 | Formal judgment sent to the registrar of the court of appeal and all parties | |
| 2022-03-15 | Judgment on appeal and notice of deposit of judgment sent to all parties | |
| 2022-03-15 | Judgment on the appeal rendered, CJ Mo Ka Côt Br Row Mar Kas Ja, The appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montréal), Number 500-10-007001-199, 2021 QCCA 783, dated May 12, 2021, was heard on March 15, 2022, and the Court on that day delivered the following judgment orally: [TRANSLATION] THE CHIEF JUSTICE — The Crown appeals as of right from a decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal. It argues that the majority overstepped its appellate role by reassessing the evidence without identifying any error in the trial judge’s reasoning. The accused claims that he acted in self defence pursuant to s. 34 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C 46. As this Court recently noted in R. v. Khill, 2021 SCC 37, three components must be present for this defence to be successful: (1) the catalyst; (2) the motive; and (3) the response (para. 51). The trial judge rejected the theory of self defence. In her view, the second criterion for this defence was not met. She did not believe that the accused had used force to defend or protect himself from the use or threat of force. In light of her assessment of the evidence, she found rather that the accused had acted out of vengeance. She therefore convicted him of aggravated assault, assault with a weapon and possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace. The majority of the Court of Appeal allowed the accused’s appeal, set aside the guilty verdicts and ordered a new trial on the ground that the trial judge had erred in analyzing the second criterion for self defence. Bachand J.A., dissenting, would instead have dismissed the appeal. Noting that the trial judge’s finding was supported by the evidence, he concluded that it was reasonable and entitled to deference. We are all of the view that the majority of the Court of Appeal erred in intervening in this case, and we agree in part with the reasons of Bachand J.A. When a verdict is reached by a judge sitting alone, there are two bases on which a court of appeal may be justified in intervening because the verdict is unreasonable: (1) where the verdict cannot be supported by the evidence; or (2) where the verdict is vitiated by illogical or irrational reasoning (R. v. Beaudry, 2007 SCC 5, [2007] 1 S.C.R. 190; R. v. Sinclair, 2011 SCC 40, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 3). While the unreasonableness of a verdict is a question of law, the assessment of credibility is a question of fact (R. v. R.P., 2012 SCC 22, [2012] 1 S.C.R. 746, at para. 10). A trial judge’s assessment of the credibility of witnesses may be rejected only where it “cannot be supported on any reasonable view of the evidence” (R. v. Burke, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 474, at para. 7). As Bachand J.A. correctly pointed out, the question in this case was therefore not [TRANSLATION] “whether the finding that the [accused] acted out of vengeance was the only one reasonably open to the judge in light of the evidence adduced”, but rather “whether that finding is sufficiently supported by the evidence and involves no palpable and overriding error” (para. 58, citing Beaudry). Bachand J.A. completed his remarks by noting that the trial judge could find beyond a reasonable doubt that the respondent had acted out of vengeance and not for the purpose of defending himself. We are all of the view that the majority of the Court of Appeal failed to consider the trial judge’s privileged position in assessing the evidence (see Beaudry, at para. 62). The majority faulted the trial judge for failing to consider certain evidence, but it did so without clearly identifying a palpable and overriding error in her analysis. However, “[t]he mere fact that the trial judge did not discuss a certain point or certain evidence in depth is not sufficient grounds for appellate interference” (Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235, at para. 72). The majority could not simply substitute its opinion for that of the trial judge with respect to the assessment of the credibility of witnesses (R. v. Gagnon, 2006 SCC 17, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 621, at para. 23). In the absence of a reviewable error, it should have shown deference. Nor could the majority of the Court of Appeal assert that the trial judge’s finding on the second criterion for self defence was [TRANSLATION] “vitiated by faulty underlying reasoning” (para. 54). A verdict may be considered unreasonable where it is based on illogical or irrational reasoning, such as where the trial judge makes a finding that is essential to the verdict but incompatible with evidence that is uncontradicted and not rejected by the judge (Beaudry, at para. 98; Sinclair, at para. 21). Here, the inference drawn by the trial judge from the evidence was not incompatible with the evidence adduced. On the contrary, her approach was coherent and supported by evidence that was neither contradicted nor rejected. There were no grounds for intervention. For these reasons, we are all of the view that the appeal should be allowed, the guilty verdicts entered by the Court of Québec restored, and the respondent Daniel Brunelle ordered to report to prison authorities within 72 hours of this judgment. Allowed |
|
| 2022-03-15 | Hearing of the appeal, 2022-03-15, CJ Mo Ka Côt Br Row Mar Kas Ja Judgment rendered |
|
| 2022-03-10 | Respondent's condensed book, (Book Form), (Printed version filed on 2022-03-11) | Daniel Brunelle |
| 2022-03-09 | Correspondence (sent by the Court) to, Correspondence relating to upcoming hearing | |
| 2022-03-07 | Certificate (on limitations to public access), (Letter Form), (Printed version filed on 2022-03-09) | Her Majesty the Queen |
| 2022-03-07 | Appellant's condensed book, (Book Form), (Printed version filed on 2022-03-09) | Her Majesty the Queen |
| 2022-02-24 | Notice of appearance, Ms. Marie-Hélène Giroux will appear before the Court, and will present oral arguments. |
Daniel Brunelle |
| 2022-02-09 | Correspondence (sent by the Court) to, Letter of direction relating to March hearing | |
| 2022-02-08 | Notice of appearance, Me Alexandre Dubois and Me Nicolas Abran will appear before the Court, and both will present oral arguments. Amended version received on 2022-02-11 |
Her Majesty the Queen |
| 2021-11-08 | Notice of hearing sent to parties, (sent electronically on 2021-11-09) | |
| 2021-11-08 | Appeal hearing scheduled, 2022-03-15 Judgment rendered |
|
| 2021-10-29 | Letter advising the parties of tentative hearing date and filing deadlines (Notice of appeal – As of right) | |
| 2021-09-24 | Certificate of counsel (attesting to record), (Letter Form), 24B, (Printed version filed on 2021-09-28) | Daniel Brunelle |
| 2021-09-24 | Certificate (on limitations to public access), (Letter Form), (Printed version filed on 2021-09-28) | Daniel Brunelle |
| 2021-09-24 | Respondent's book of authorities, (Book Form), REQUIRED : proof of service (rec'd 2021-09-29), Completed on: 2021-10-27, (Printed version filed on 2021-09-28) | Daniel Brunelle |
| 2021-09-24 | Respondent's factum, (Book Form), REQUIRED : proof of service (rec'd 2021-09-29), Completed on: 2021-10-27, (Printed version filed on 2021-09-28) | Daniel Brunelle |
| 2021-08-04 | Certificate of counsel (attesting to record), (Letter Form) | Her Majesty the Queen |
| 2021-08-04 | Certificate (on limitations to public access), (Letter Form), 23A - Factum, Record & Book of authorities | Her Majesty the Queen |
| 2021-08-04 | Appellant's book of authorities, (Book Form), Completed on: 2021-09-02, (Printed version filed on 2021-08-09) | Her Majesty the Queen |
| 2021-08-04 | Appellant's record, (Book Form), (7 volumes), Completed on: 2021-09-02, (Printed version filed on 2021-08-09) | Her Majesty the Queen |
| 2021-08-04 | Appellant's factum, (Book Form), Completed on: 2021-09-02, (Printed version filed on 2021-08-09) | Her Majesty the Queen |
| 2021-06-21 | Letter acknowledging receipt of a notice of appeal, FILE OPENED 2021-06-21 | |
| 2021-06-09 | Certificate (on limitations to public access), (Letter Form), (Printed version filed on 2021-06-14) | Her Majesty the Queen |
| 2021-06-09 | Notice of appeal, REQUIRED : - TC reasons (rec'd 2021-06-21) - Filing fee (rec'd 2021-07-07), Completed on: 2021-07-08, (Printed version filed on 2021-06-14) |
Her Majesty the Queen |
- Date modified: