SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
Appeal Heard: February 20, 2025 Judgment Rendered: February 20, 2025 Docket: 41262
Between: Maxime Chicoine-Joubert Appellant and His Majesty The King Respondent Official English Translation Coram: Wagner C.J. and Karakatsanis, Côté, Martin, Kasirer, Jamal and Moreau JJ.
Judgment Read By: (paras. 1 to 2)
Wagner C.J.
Majority:
Wagner C.J. and Karakatsanis, Côté, Martin, Kasirer and Moreau JJ.
Dissent:
Jamal J.
Note: This document is subject to editorial revision before its reproduction in final form in the Canada Supreme Court Reports .
Maxime Chicoine-Joubert Appellant
v.
His Majesty The King Respondent
Indexed as: R. v. Chicoine-Joubert
2025 SCC 3
2025: February 20.
Present: Wagner C.J. and Karakatsanis, Côté, Martin, Kasirer, Jamal and Moreau JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for quebec
Criminal law — Charge to jury — Manslaughter — Accused charged with first degree murder and assault with weapon — A ccused convicted by jury of second degree murder and assault with weapon — Accused appealing conviction for second degree murder on ground that trial judge failed to mention mens rea required for offence of manslaughter in his instructions to jury and in his answer to jury's questions about that offence — Majority of Court of Appeal finding that trial judge's instructions and answer were sufficient given that trial judge did not need to instruct jury on manslaughter because accused conceded that he was guilty of that offence — Dissenting judge finding that trial judge erred by not adequately answering jury's questions about offence of manslaughter and that there was therefore reasonable possibility that jurors misunderstood what mens rea was required for second degree murder — Convictions upheld.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal (Vauclair, Hamilton and Bachand JJ.A.), 2024 QCCA 488 , [2024] AZ-52021940 , [2024] J.Q. n o 3061 (Lexis) , 2024 CarswellQue 3729 (WL) , affirming the convictions of the accused for second degree murder and assault with a weapon. Appeal dismissed, Jamal J. dissenting .
Marie-Hélène Giroux , for the appellant.
Robert Benoit , for the respondent.
English version of the judgment of the Court delivered orally by
1The Chief Justice — A majority of the Court would dismiss the appeal, substantially for the reasons of the majority of the Quebec Court of Appeal.
2Justice Jamal, for his part, would have allowed the appeal, substantially for the reasons of the dissenting judge.
Judgment accordingly.
Solicitors for the appellant: Marie-Hélène Giroux Avocats Inc., Montréal.
Solicitor for the respondent: Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions, Montréal.