R. v. Mac, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 856, 2002 SCC 24

Her Majesty The Queen Appellant

v.

Minh Khuan Mac Respondent

Indexed as: R. v. Mac

Neutral citation: 2002 SCC 24.

File No.: 28457.

2002: March 14.

Present: McLachlin C.J. and Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel JJ.

on appeal from the court of appeal for ontario

Criminal law – Forgery – Accused charged with being in possession of various machines and materials adapted and intended to be used in forging credit cards – Meaning of word “adapted” in s. 369(b) of Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46.

Statutes – Interpretation – Bilingual statutes – Criminal Code – Accused charged with being in possession of various machines and materials adapted and intended to be used in forging credit cards – Proper interpretation of word “adapted” in s. 369(b) of Criminal Code – Ambiguity arising from English version of Criminal Code resolved by clear language in French version – Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 369(b).

Statutes and Regulations Cited

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 342.01(1)(d) [ad. 1997, c. 18, s. 17], 369(b).

Authors Cited

Côté, Pierre-André. The Interpretation of Legislation in Canada, 3rd ed. Scarborough, Ont.: Carswell, 2000.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal (2001), 2001 24177 (ON CA), 152 C.C.C. (3d) 1, 40 C.R. (5th) 138, 140 O.A.C. 270, [2001] O.J. No. 375 (QL), allowing the accused’s appeal from conviction on five counts of possession of materials adapted and intended to be used to commit forgery, entering acquittals on four counts and ordering a new trial on the remaining count. Appeal allowed.

Robert W. Hubbard and Susan Magotiaux, for the appellant.

Gregory Lafontaine and Tanya Kranjc, for the respondent.

The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by

[1] bastarache J. – The sole issue in this appeal concerns the proper interpretation of the word “adapted” in s. 369(b) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46. The facts are set out in the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal (R. v. Mac (2001), 2001 24177 (ON CA), 152 C.C.C. (3d) 1).

[2] At the respondent’s trial, Feldman J. held that the word “adapted”, as it was used in s. 369(b), meant “suitable for” rather than “modified or altered” ([1997] O.J. No. 5918 (QL) (Gen. Div.)). Accordingly, she instructed the jury that evidence of alteration or modification of the instruments found in the respondent’s possession was not necessary to form the basis of a conviction. The jury convicted the respondent on five counts of possession of instruments adapted and intended to be used to commit forgery, pursuant to s. 369(b) of the Criminal Code.

[3] Doherty J.A. found that the word “adapted” had two equally viable meanings and that it could not be stated with any certainty which of the two meanings Parliament intended. As a result, he held that the ambiguity must be resolved in favour of the accused and allowed the respondent’s appeal.

[4] Although we agree with Doherty J.A. that courts may resort to strict construction of penal statutes where ordinary principles of interpretation do not resolve an ambiguity, we are of the view that s. 369(b) is not ambiguous. Accordingly, we find it unnecessary to engage in the kind of interpretive analysis undertaken by the Court of Appeal. We say this because the issue is resolved by referring to the French language version of the Code which was not argued in the courts below. Our Court requested the parties to address the French version in further submissions and rescheduled the hearing of the appeal to facilitate this.

[5] The Criminal Code is a bilingual statute of which both the English and French versions are equally authoritative. In his Interpretation of Legislation in Canada (3rd ed. 2000), at p. 327, Pierre-André Côté reminds us that statutory interpretation of bilingual enactments begins with a search for the shared meaning between the two versions. Where the words of one version may raise an ambiguity, courts should first look to the other official language version to determine whether its meaning is plain and unequivocal.

[6] In this case, any ambiguity arising from the English version is resolved by the clear and unambiguous language of the French version of s. 369(b). There is therefore no need to resort to further rules of statutory interpretation, such as those invoked by the Court of Appeal.

[7] Section 369(b) and s. 342.01(1)(d), as noted by Doherty J.A., are related provisions. They must be read together. The French version of s. 342.01(1)(d) uses the word “modifié” for the English word “adapted”. In contrast, in s. 369(b), the word “adapté” is used together with the English expression “adapted”. This makes clear that, in the first case, “adapted” means altered or modified, while in the second case it does not. Thus the common meaning of “adapted/adapté” in s. 369(b) is “suitable for”.

[8] Consequently, we allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal and restore the decision of the trial judge. The matter is remitted to the Ontario Court of Appeal with regard to the appeal of sentence.

Judgment accordingly.

Solicitor for the appellant: The Ministry of the Attorney General, Toronto.

Solicitors for the respondent: Lafontaine & Associate, Toronto.