R. v. Larivière, [2001] 3 S.C.R. 1013, 2001 SCC 93
Her Majesty The Queen Appellant
v.
Daniel Larivière Respondent
Indexed as: R. v. Larivière
Neutral citation: 2001 SCC 93.
2001: December 5; 2001: December 20.
Present: L’Heureux‑Dubé, Gonthier, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for quebec
Criminal law -- Appeals to Supreme Court of Canada -- Appeal as of right -- Majority of Court of Appeal setting aside accused’s conviction for driving while disqualified -- Court of Appeal expressing differences of opinion on legal issues but dissent not resting on question of law alone -- Supreme Court without jurisdiction to hear Crown’s appeal -- Appeal quashed -- Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C‑46, s. 693(1)(a).
Statutes and Regulations Cited
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C‑46, ss. 259(4), 693(1)(a) [rep. & sub. c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 146].
APPEAL from a judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal (2000), 2000 8295 (QC CA), 38 C.R. (5th) 130, [2000] Q.J. No. 3086 (QL), allowing an appeal from conviction. Appeal quashed.
Pierre Lapointe, for the appellant.
Érika Porter, for the amicus curiae.
The following is the judgment delivered by
Introduction
1The Court -- This appeal by the Crown was filed as of right under s. 693(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, which provides that:
- (1) Where a judgment of a court of appeal sets aside a conviction pursuant to an appeal taken under section 675 or dismisses an appeal taken pursuant to paragraph 676(1)(a), (b) or (c) or subsection 676(3), the Attorney General may appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada
(a) on any question of law on which a judge of the court of appeal dissents; . . .
2The respondent did not appear and the Court appointed an amicus curiae to assist in responding to this Crown appeal. We are grateful to the amicus for her submissions.
3We have considered the proper application of s. 693(1)(a) and, for the reasons that follow, we are all of the view that we have no jurisdiction to hear this appeal as the dissent in the Court of Appeal ((2000), 2000 8295 (QC CA), 38 C.R. (5th) 130) is not a dissent on a question of law within the meaning of that section. Accordingly, the appeal must be quashed.
Background
4The respondent was convicted of driving while disqualified, contrary to s. 259(4) of the Criminal Code, and his conviction was set aside by the Quebec Court of Appeal, Chamberland J.A. dissenting. The oral judgment of the trial court was very brief, and led to different interpretations in the Court of Appeal as to some critical findings of fact made -- or not made -- by the trial judge.
5Dussault J.A., for the majority, concluded that the trial judge believed the respondent, or at least had a reasonable doubt, as to whether he knew that he was disqualified from driving at the relevant time (para. 22). It is on that basis that he embarked upon an examination of the issues of mistake of fact, mistake of law, and officially induced errors. In his conclusion Dussault J.A. reiterated that [translation] “unless he found that the [accused’s] explanation was not credible, the judge could not base a verdict of guilty on the fact that he failed to carry out certain research” (para. 25).
6In contrast, Chamberland J.A. stated at the outset, referring to the reasons of Dussault J.A.: [translation] “. . . I do not view the matter in the same way as he does” (para. 32). Although he appeared to leave open any factual resolution of the issues at the outset of his reasons, Chamberland J.A. stated later that: [translation] “The trial judge’s reasoning, brief though it is, makes it possible, in my view, to say that he found that the mental element of the offence, namely knowledge of the disqualification from driving, was established” (para. 51); [translation] “This finding by the trial judge was entirely justified” (para. 52).
Analysis and Disposition
7Even though the reasons in the Court of Appeal express differences of opinion of legal issues, the dissent of Chamberland J.A. does not rest on a question of law alone. Rather, his dissent is based, at most, on a mixed question of fact and law and, as such, does not give rise to the application of s. 693(1)(a).
8The appeal is quashed.
Appeal quashed.
Solicitor for the appellant: The Department of Justice, Sainte‑Foy.
Solicitors appointed by the Court as amicus curiae: Bélanger, Murray, Richard, Quebec City.
