{"id":20440,"date":"2024-01-04T16:13:08","date_gmt":"2024-01-04T21:13:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/?p=20440"},"modified":"2024-01-04T16:13:08","modified_gmt":"2024-01-04T21:13:08","slug":"les-tribunaux-doivent-avoir-a-lesprit-la-preuve-concernant-la-sante-mentale-lorsque-cette-preuve-est-pertinente-a-legard-de-questions-touchant-la-responsabilite-criminelle-r-c-la","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/les-tribunaux-doivent-avoir-a-lesprit-la-preuve-concernant-la-sante-mentale-lorsque-cette-preuve-est-pertinente-a-legard-de-questions-touchant-la-responsabilite-criminelle-r-c-la\/","title":{"rendered":"Les tribunaux doivent avoir \u00e0 l\u2019esprit la preuve concernant la sant\u00e9 mentale lorsque cette preuve est pertinente \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9gard de questions touchant la responsabilit\u00e9 criminelle : R. c. Lawlor, 2023 CSC 34"},"content":{"rendered":"

R. c. Lawlor, 2023 CSC 34<\/a><\/p>\n

Comme il a maintes fois \u00e9t\u00e9 \u00e9nonc\u00e9, et nous le r\u00e9p\u00e9tons en l\u2019esp\u00e8ce, les tribunaux doivent\u00a0\u00a0 avoir \u00e0 l\u2019esprit la preuve concernant la sant\u00e9 mentale lorsque cette preuve est pertinente \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9gard de questions touchant la responsabilit\u00e9 criminelle. C\u2019est particuli\u00e8rement le cas dans le cadre des directives aux jur\u00e9s, afin de les aider \u00e0 utiliser une telle preuve de mani\u00e8re appropri\u00e9e.<\/h2>\n

La juge O\u2019Bonsawin (avec l\u2019accord des juges Rowe, Martin et Moreau) \u2014 Il s\u2019agit d\u2019un appel visant l\u2019arr\u00eat R. c. Lawlor<\/em>, 2022 ONCA 645<\/a>, 418 C.C.C. (3d) 87, dans lequel les juges majoritaires ont rejet\u00e9 l\u2019appel form\u00e9 par Derrick Lawlor contre la d\u00e9claration de culpabilit\u00e9 pour meurtre au premier degr\u00e9 prononc\u00e9e contre lui par un jury. La Cour d\u2019appel de l\u2019Ontario a rejet\u00e9 l\u2019appel \u00e0 la majorit\u00e9; le juge Nordheimer aurait accueilli l\u2019appel et ordonn\u00e9 un nouveau proc\u00e8s.<\/p>\n

Seulement deux moyens d\u2019appel sont soumis \u00e0 notre Cour. Le premier porte sur la question de savoir si le juge du proc\u00e8s a fait erreur dans ses directives au jury relativement \u00e0 l\u2019utilisation de la preuve concernant la sant\u00e9 mentale de l\u2019accus\u00e9 et \u00e0 l\u2019intention requise \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9gard de l\u2019infraction de meurtre au premier degr\u00e9. Le second porte sur la preuve relative au comportement apr\u00e8s le fait.<\/p>\n

Notre Cour est majoritairement d\u2019avis d\u2019accueillir l\u2019appel sur la base du moyen relatif \u00e0 l\u2019intention requise pour l\u2019infraction de meurtre et de meurtre au premier degr\u00e9, mais non sur la base du moyen relatif au comportement apr\u00e8s le fait. Pour ce qui est du premier moyen, nous souscrivons substantiellement aux motifs du juge Nordheimer. Pour ce qui est du second moyen, nous souscrivons substantiellement aux motifs des juges majoritaires de la Cour d\u2019appel de l\u2019Ontario. Nous ajouterions le commentaire suivant.<\/p>\n

Comme il a maintes fois \u00e9t\u00e9 \u00e9nonc\u00e9, et nous le r\u00e9p\u00e9tons en l\u2019esp\u00e8ce, les tribunaux doivent\u00a0\u00a0 avoir \u00e0 l\u2019esprit la preuve concernant la sant\u00e9 mentale lorsque cette preuve est pertinente \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9gard de questions touchant la responsabilit\u00e9 criminelle. C\u2019est particuli\u00e8rement le cas dans le cadre des directives aux jur\u00e9s, afin de les aider \u00e0 utiliser une telle preuve de mani\u00e8re appropri\u00e9e.<\/p>\n

En cons\u00e9quence, l\u2019appel est accueilli, la d\u00e9claration de culpabilit\u00e9 est annul\u00e9e et un nouveau proc\u00e8s est ordonn\u00e9.<\/p>\n

Je suis d\u2019accord avec mes coll\u00e8gues pour dire que les tribunaux doivent\u00a0\u00a0 avoir \u00e0 l\u2019esprit la preuve concernant la sant\u00e9 mentale dans les affaires criminelles, y compris dans le cadre des directives au jury.<\/h2>\n

Le juge Kasirer \u2014 Je rejetterais l\u2019appel. Je me permets deux observations.<\/p>\n

Premi\u00e8rement, je suis d\u2019accord avec mes coll\u00e8gues pour dire que les tribunaux doivent\u00a0\u00a0 avoir \u00e0 l\u2019esprit la preuve concernant la sant\u00e9 mentale dans les affaires criminelles, y compris dans le cadre des directives au jury. Comme l\u2019ont \u00e9crit les juges majoritaires de la Cour d\u2019appel, il est indubitable que la preuve de probl\u00e8mes de sant\u00e9 mentale peut \u00eatre pertinente \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9gard de questions touchant l\u2019intention ainsi que la pr\u00e9m\u00e9ditation et le propos d\u00e9lib\u00e9r\u00e9, y compris dans l\u2019appr\u00e9ciation du caract\u00e8re ad\u00e9quat d\u2019un expos\u00e9 au jury (voir les par. 41 et 44-48).<\/p>\n

R. v. Lawlor, 2022 ONCA 645, j. Nordheimer<\/a><\/p>\n

Evidence of mental illness is capable of undermining the mental element for murder in s. 229(a) (thereby reducing liability from second degree murder to manslaughter). It may also undermine the added mental elements of planning and deliberation in s. 231(2).<\/h2>\n
\n

[<\/a>128]\u00a0\u00a0 As I have said, the trial judge does not mention any of the considerable evidence that was before the jury regarding the appellant\u2019s mental health, and the perilous state it was in at the time of the homicide. He did not do so notwithstanding that this evidence was of more significance to the issue of intent than was the evidence about the appellant\u2019s alcohol consumption. And intent was a critical issue in this case. Mental health evidence is important to the issue of intent for the reasons enunciated by Trotter\u00a0J.A. in R. v. Spence<\/em>, 2017 ONCA 619<\/a>, 353 C.C.C. (3d) 446, at para. 49<\/a>:<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

[E]vidence of mental illness is capable of undermining the mental element for murder in s. 229(a) (thereby reducing liability from second degree murder to manslaughter). It may also undermine the added mental elements of planning and deliberation in s. 231(2): see More v. The Queen<\/em>, 1963 CanLII 79 (SCC)<\/a>, [1963] S.C.R. 522, at pp. 533-535; and McMartin v. The Queen<\/em>, 1964 CanLII 43 (SCC)<\/a>, [1964] S.C.R. 484, at pp. 493-495.<\/p>\n

\n

[<\/a>129]\u00a0\u00a0 In my view, it is not sufficient, in response to this concern, to say that the mental health evidence was before the jury and that they would have considered it. There is no reason to assume that would have happened. The jury was told to follow the trial judge\u2019s instructions on the law, as every jury is. When a trial judge does not mention a body of evidence, when relating other evidence on an issue as important as one of the elements of the offence, there is every prospect that a jury would conclude that the mental health evidence was not relevant to that issue. After all, the jury would rationalize that, if that evidence had been of importance to the issue, the trial judge would have mentioned it, as he did other evidence. Further, the catch-all boilerplate statement that the jury should take into account \u201cthe rest of the evidence that sheds light on his state of mind at the time\u201d is insufficient to override that logical conclusion or to bring the importance of this evidence to the jury\u2019s attention in their consideration of this element of the offence.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[<\/a>130]\u00a0\u00a0 The failure of the trial judge to relate this evidence to the element of intent was an error. It is contrary to the advice given by Moldaver J. in R. v. Walle<\/em>, 2012 SCC 41<\/a>, [2012] 2 S.C.R. 438. While my colleague cites the decision in her reasons, she fails to emphasize the central point that Moldaver J. made when he said, at para. 65:<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

In the end, what is critical is that the jury be made to understand, in clear terms, that in assessing the specific intent required for murder, it should consider the whole of the evidence that could realistically bear on the accused’s mental state at the time of the alleged offence. The trial judge should alert the jury to the pertinent evidence<\/span>. How detailed that recitation should be will generally be a matter for the trial judge, in the exercise of his or her discretion. [Emphasis added].<\/p>\n

\n

[<\/a>131]\u00a0\u00a0 Whatever may be the parameters of the trial judge\u2019s discretion regarding the details of the evidence to be provided, they do not extend to not mentioning the evidence at all.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[<\/a>132]\u00a0\u00a0 The failure of the trial judge to relate this evidence to the element of intent meant that the jury was not properly equipped to consider that element and whether it constituted the unlawful act of manslaughter or murder. It is also a factor that would have gone to the jury\u2019s consideration of whether, if they concluded it was murder, the murder was a planned and deliberate one. The trial judge does not mention this evidence in his instructions on that element of the offence either.<\/p>\n

There is no requirement for an expert opinion on this issue<\/h2>\n

[<\/a>134]\u00a0\u00a0 My colleague attempts to avoid the effect of these missing elements in the jury instructions in a number of ways. First, she downplays the mental health evidence by characterizing it as \u201climited\u201d. I do not know of any principle that excuses a trial judge from mentioning evidence that is relevant to an element of the offence charged just because the evidence is not as strong as it might have been. As my colleague acknowledges, there is no requirement for an expert opinion on this issue: Spence<\/em>, at para. 45<\/a>; R. v. Reeves<\/em>, 2017 BCCA 97<\/a>, 352 C.C.C. (3d) 66, at para. 17<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

R. c. Lawlor, 2023 CSC 34 Comme il a maintes fois \u00e9t\u00e9 \u00e9nonc\u00e9, et nous le r\u00e9p\u00e9tons en l\u2019esp\u00e8ce, les tribunaux doivent\u00a0\u00a0 avoir \u00e0 l\u2019esprit la preuve concernant la sant\u00e9 mentale lorsque cette preuve est pertinente \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9gard de questions touchant la responsabilit\u00e9 criminelle. C\u2019est particuli\u00e8rement le cas dans le cadre des directives aux jur\u00e9s, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[120],"tags":[233],"yst_prominent_words":[],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20440"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=20440"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20440\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=20440"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=20440"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=20440"},{"taxonomy":"yst_prominent_words","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/yst_prominent_words?post=20440"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}