Case information

Criminal law — Fingerprinting — Prosecution of hybrid offence by way of summary conviction — Presumption that offence is indictable offence — Election by prosecutor before fingerprinting — Whether Quebec Court of Appeal erred in law in stating that Dudley is not evolution of law requiring review of its generic principle with respect to Identification of Criminals Act and Interpretation Act — Whether Quebec Court of Appeal erred in law in its interpretation of s. 2(1)(c) of Identification of Criminals Act and s. 34(1)(a) of Interpretation Act where prosecutor elects before fingerprinting to prosecute hybrid offence by way of summary conviction — Identification of Criminals Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I 1, s. 2(1)(c) — Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I 21, s. 34(1).

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

The applicant, Paul Éric Béliveau, and two other individuals (“petitioners”) received a summons or appearance notice on hybrid charges for which the prosecution elected to proceed by way of summary conviction. The summonses or notices directed them to report to the police station on a date prior to their appearance so they could be subjected to the identification process provided for in the Identification of Criminals Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I 1. Before their appearance, the petitioners filed proceedings seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the portion of the notices and summonses directing them to submit to identification measures. They argued that, since R. v. Dudley, 2009 SCC 58, the Identification of Criminals Act has not applied to hybrid offences that are prosecuted summarily.

The Superior Court granted the applications for a writ of certiorari and quashed the portion of the appearance notices and summonses confirmed by justices of the peace that required the petitioners to submit to identification and bertillonage measures. The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown’s appeal, set aside the Superior Court’s judgment of March 8, 2019 and dismissed the applications for writs of certiorari. It found that the application judge had erred in law in considering herself bound by Dudley based on the principle of stare decisis: the nature of the dispute and the specific remarks of the Supreme Court judges to the effect that the Identification of Criminals Act was not in issue led to the conclusion that stare decisis could not be invoked. Upon completing its purposive analysis of the relevant provisions, the Court of Appeal concluded that a hybrid offence does not lose its indictable character because prosecution is instituted summarily.