Dupont v. R.
- Citation
- [1978] 1 SCR 1017
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 23 November 1977
- Posture
- Criminal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada; Appeal Dismissed, Appellate Division Order Upheld
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 23 November 1977
- Posture
- Criminal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada; Appeal Dismissed, Appellate Division Order Upheld
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Supreme Court agreed with the Alberta Appellate Division that the trial judge misdirected the jury by treating 'wilfully' as necessarily implying evil intent; accordingly the acquittal was properly set aside and a new trial ordered.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed; order of the Alberta Appellate Division setting aside the acquittal and ordering a new trial upheld.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
- Acquittal set aside and new trial ordered.
02
Material facts
Parties
Lucien Dupont
Appellant Counsel: L.L. RossHer Majesty The Queen
Respondent Counsel: P.S. Chrumka, Q.C.03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada; Appeal Dismissed, Appellate Division Order Upheld
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the trial judge misdirected the jury by equating 'wilfully' with 'evil intent'
- 02
Proper mens rea required for an offense under s.400(b) of the Criminal Code
- 03
Whether the acquittal should be set aside and a new trial ordered
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The trial judge misdirected the jury by construing 'wilfully' to mean evil intent; the acquittal should stand.
- Respondent
- The Appellate Division correctly found misdirection; the acquittal should be set aside and a new trial ordered because the mens rea element under s.400(b) was not properly instructed.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, ss. 386(1), 400(b) and common law mens rea principles
Mens rea must be correctly explained to the jury; a requirement of 'wilfully' cannot be equated solely with 'evil intent' without proper legal basis
- 02
Supreme Court of Canada precedent as applied by the Alberta Appellate Division
An appellate court may set aside an acquittal and order a new trial where the trial judge materially misdirects the jury on a central element of the offence
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Supreme Court agreed with the Alberta Appellate Division that the trial judge misdirected the jury by treating 'wilfully' as necessarily implying evil intent; accordingly the acquittal was properly set aside and a new trial ordered.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed; order of the Alberta Appellate Division setting aside the acquittal and ordering a new trial upheld.
- Appeal dismissed.
- Acquittal set aside and new trial ordered.
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of Canada · 23 November 1977
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Supreme Court of Canada
Judgment· 23 November 1977
Dupont v. R. Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1977-11-23 Report [1978] 1 SCR 1017 Judges Laskin, Bora; Martland, Ronald; Ritchie, Roland Almon; Spence, Wishart Flett; Pigeon, Louis-Philippe; Dickson, Robert George Brian; Beetz, Jean; Estey, Willard Zebedee; Pratte, Yves On appeal from Alberta Subjects Criminal law Decision Content Supreme Court of Canada Dupont v. R., [1978] 1 S.C.R. 1017 Date: 1977-11-23 Lucien Dupont Appellant; and Her Majesty The Queen Respondent. 1977: November 23. Present: Laskin C.J. and Martland, Ritchie, Spence, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz, Estey and Pratte JJ. ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ALBERTA, APPELLATE DIVISION Criminal law—Charges of wilfully placing poison in such position that it might easily be consumed by cattle—Trial judge concluding “wilfully” involved evil intent—Misdirection—Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, ss. 386(1), 400 (b). APPEAL from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Alberta, Appellate Division, setting aside the appellant’s acquittal and ordering a new trial on charges of endangering cattle, contrary to s. 400(b) of the Criminal Code. Appeal dismissed. L.L. Ross, for the appellant. P.S. Chrumka, Q.C., for the respondent. The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by THE CHIEF JUSTICE—We do not need to hear you, Mr. Chrumka. We agree with the Alberta Appellate Division and this appeal is accordingly dismissed. Judgment accordingly. Solicitors for the appellant: M. Harradence & Co., Calgary. Solicitor for the respondent: P.S. Chrumka, Calgary.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.