SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
Between:
Ambroise Joseph McKay
Appellant
and
Her Majesty The Queen
Respondent
Coram: McLachlin C.J. and Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron and Rothstein JJ.
Reasons for judgment:
(paras. 1 to 3)
McLachlin C.J. (Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron and Rothstein JJ. concurring)
R. v. Mckay, [2007] 1 S.C.R. 793, 2007 SCC 16
Ambroise Joseph McKay Appellant
v.
Her Majesty The Queen Respondent
Indexed as: R. v. McKay
Neutral citation: 2007 SCC 16.
2007: March 23.
Present: McLachlin C.J. and Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron and Rothstein JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for manitoba
Criminal law — Defences — Defence of property.
Statutes and Regulations Cited
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 41.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Manitoba Court of Appeal (Huband, Hamilton and Freedman JJ.A.) (2006), 208 Man. R. (2d) 15, 211 C.C.C. (3d) 74, [2006] 9 W.W.R. 383, 383 W.A.C. 15, [2006] M.J. No. 362 (QL), 2006 CarswellMan 260, 2006 MBCA 83, substituting for the acquittal a verdict of guilty of aggravated assault. Appeal allowed.
Evan J. Roitenberg and Paul Cooper, for the appellant.
Brian Wilford and Richard Saull, for the respondent.
The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by
1The Chief Justice — We agree with the Court of Appeal’s decision to set aside the acquittal ((2006), 211 C.C.C. (3d) 74, 2006 MBCA 83). Defence of property under s. 41 alone could not justify the commission of the aggravated assault alleged in this case. We are not satisfied, however, that the findings of the trial judge suffice to ground the conviction entered by the Court of Appeal. In particular, the trial judge made no finding that the appellant had intentionally stabbed the complainant. Moreover, he expressed reservations about the overall reliability of the evidence.
2In so concluding, we should not be taken as endorsing the Court of Appeal’s analysis on the scope of the defence of property. By way of clarification, we should not be taken as endorsing the view that “defence of property alone will never justify the use of anything more than minor force being used against a trespasser” (para. 15) or that, in all cases, “the defence of property alone will not justify the intentional use of a weapon against a trespasser” (para. 23).
3The appeal is allowed, the conviction set aside, and the matter remitted to the Court of Queen’s Bench for a new trial.
Judgment accordingly.
Solicitors for the appellant: Gindin, Wolson, Simmonds, Winnipeg.
Solicitor for the respondent: Manitoba Justice, Winnipeg.