R. v. McIntyre

R. v. McIntyre

Although a trial judge has discretion to depart from a coordinate-court decision in light of persuasive appellate authority from another jurisdiction, applying principles of judicial comity, consistency, and trial management the court will follow Simard; the Crown's application to reopen the constitutional validity of s.232(2) is dismissed and Simard remains the binding law in B.C. at trial level.

Citation
2025 BCSC 1114
Parties
Crown: Rex; Accused: Mitchell Earl McIntyre
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 April 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal Murder / Oral Ruling on Crown Application Re Constitutionality of S.232(2); Trial Ongoing With Defence Case Scheduled for June 9, 2025
Outcome
Crown's application to revisit the constitutionality of s.232(2) dismissed; court will follow R. v. Simard in British Columbia
Legal Topics
Provocation Defence, Section 232(2) Criminal Code, Charter S.7, Horizontal Stare Decisis and Judicial Comity, Threshold Rulings by Trial Judges
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Procedural Law Administrative/case Management Provocation Defence Section 232(2) Criminal Code Charter S.7 Horizontal Stare Decisis and Judicial Comity +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Crown

Mitchell Earl McIntyre

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Murder / Oral Ruling on Crown Application Re Constitutionality of S.232(2); Trial Ongoing With Defence Case Scheduled for June 9, 2025

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.232(2) of the Criminal Code is constitutional under s.7 of the Charter
  2. 2 Whether a trial judge may revisit a prior coordinate-court decision (Simard) in light of non-binding appellate authority from another province (Brar)
  3. 3 Whether the Crown's application seeks impermissible declaratory relief or is a permissible threshold trial-management ruling

Ratio Decidendi

Although a trial judge has discretion to depart from a coordinate-court decision in light of persuasive appellate authority from another jurisdiction, applying principles of judicial comity, consistency, and trial management the court will follow Simard; the Crown's application to reopen the constitutional validity of s.232(2) is dismissed and Simard remains the binding law in B.C. at trial level.

Court Disposition

Crown's application to revisit the constitutionality of s.232(2) dismissed; court will follow R. v. Simard in British Columbia

Orders

  • Crown's application to reopen/revisit constitutionality of s.232(2) dismissed
  • Proceed with trial under the law as stated in R. v. Simard; no interim reopening of constitutional issue at trial level