Supreme Court of Canada
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
Appeal heard: May 15, 2018 Judgment rendered: May 15, 2018 Docket: 37845, 37846
Between:
Collet Dawn Stephan
Appellant
and
Her Majesty The Queen
Respondent
And Between:
David Robert Stephan
Appellant
and
Her Majesty The Queen
Respondent
Coram: Wagner C.J. and Abella, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Gascon, Côté and Rowe JJ.
Reasons for Judgment: (paras. 1 to 3)
Moldaver J. (Wagner C.J. and Abella, Karakatsanis, Gascon, Côté, and Rowe JJ. concurring)
R. v. Stephan, 2018 SCC 21, [2018] 1 S.C.R. 633
Collet Dawn Stephan Appellant
v.
Her Majesty The Queen Respondent
- and -
David Robert Stephan Appellant
v.
Her Majesty The Queen Respondent
Indexed as: R. v. Stephan
2018 SCC 21
File Nos.: 37845, 37846.
2018: May 15.
Present: Wagner C.J. and Abella, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Gascon, Côté and Rowe JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for alberta
Criminal law — Failure to provide necessaries of life — Elements of offence — Charge to jury — Accused couple convicted by jury of failing to provide the necessaries of life to their son — Majority of Court of Appeal affirming convictions — Dissenting judge holding that trial judge did not properly instruct jury on second element of offence and did not properly explain mens rea of offence to jury — New trial ordered.
APPEALS from a judgment of the Alberta Court of Appeal (Watson, McDonald and O’Ferrall JJ.A.), 2017 ABCA 380 , 357 C.C.C. (3d) 10, 395 C.R.R. (2d) 252, 41 C.R. (7th) 424, 61 Alta. L.R. (6th) 26, [2018] 4 W.W.R. 719, [2017] A.J. No. 1203 (QL), 2017 CarswellAlta 2403 (WL Can.), affirming the convictions of the accused for failing to provide the necessaries of life. Appeals allowed.
Heather Ferg and Ian McKay , for the appellant Collet Dawn Stephan.
Karen B. Molle and Kelsey Sitar , for the appellant David Robert Stephan.
Julie Morgan and Colin Schulhauser , for the respondent.
The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by
[ 1 ] Moldaver J. — We are in essential agreement with the reasons of Justice O’Ferrall.
[ 2 ] In particular, we agree that the learned trial judge conflated the actus reus and mens rea of the offence and did not sufficiently explain the concept of marked departure in a way that the jury could understand and apply it.
[ 3 ] Accordingly, we would allow the appeals, quash the convictions and order a new trial.
Judgment accordingly.
Solicitors for the appellant Collet Dawn Stephan: McKay Criminal Defence, Calgary.
Solicitors for the appellant David Robert Stephan: Karen Molle Law Office, Calgary; Sitar & Milczarek, Calgary.
Solicitor for the respondent: Attorney General of Alberta, Calgary.
