Hubbert v. R.
- Citation
- [1977] 2 SCR 267
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 25 March 1977
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario; Judgment Rendered by Supreme Court
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 25 March 1977
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario; Judgment Rendered by Supreme Court
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The trial judge properly exercised his discretion in refusing the challenge for cause and, on the evidence, there was no error in failing to direct the jury on drunkenness; therefore the Court of Appeal's disposition stands and the appeal is dismissed.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
02
Material facts
Parties
Gerald Dennis Hubbert
Appellant Counsel: John F. Hamilton, Q.C.; R.G. Thomas, Q.C.Her Majesty The Queen
Respondent Counsel: R.M. McLeod03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario; Judgment Rendered by Supreme Court
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the trial judge properly exercised discretion in refusing the challenge for cause
- 02
Whether the trial judge erred in failing to direct the jury on the issue of drunkenness
- 03
Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its disposition of the appeal
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellant argued that the trial judge improperly exercised his discretion in dealing with counsel's attempt to challenge for cause and that the jury ought to have been directed on the issue of drunkenness.
- Respondent
- The Crown submitted that the trial judge's exercise of discretion was proper, that no direction on drunkenness was required on the facts, and that the Court of Appeal's disposition was correct.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Court of Appeal for Ontario decision (1975), 29 C.C.C. (2d) 279; affirmed by Supreme Court of Canada in Hubbert v. R., [1977] 2 S.C.R. 267
A trial judge has discretion in ruling on challenges for cause and appellate courts will not interfere absent demonstrable error.
- 02
Supreme Court of Canada judgment in Hubbert v. R., [1977] 2 S.C.R. 267
Failure to direct a jury on a particular defence such as drunkenness is not an error unless the evidence requires such a direction.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The trial judge properly exercised his discretion in refusing the challenge for cause and, on the evidence, there was no error in failing to direct the jury on drunkenness; therefore the Court of Appeal's disposition stands and the appeal is dismissed.
Obiter and limits
- The procedure outlined by the Court of Appeal for dealing with challenges for cause is endorsed as a useful guide for trial judges.
- The Court noted it was unnecessary to hear the respondent in oral argument on the matters addressed.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed.
- Appeal dismissed.
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of Canada · 25 March 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· 25 March 1977
Hubbert v. R. Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1977-03-25 Report [1977] 2 SCR 267 Judges Laskin, Bora; Martland, Ronald; Judson, Wilfred; Ritchie, Roland Almon; Spence, Wishart Flett; Pigeon, Louis-Philippe; Dickson, Robert George Brian; Beetz, Jean; de Grandpré, Louis-Philippe On appeal from Ontario Subjects Criminal law Decision Content Supreme Court of Canada Hubbert v. R., [1977] 2 S.C.R. 267 Date: 1977-03-25 Gerald Dennis Hubbert (Plaintiff) Appellant; and Her Majesty The Queen (Defendant) Respondent. 1977: March 25. Present: Laskin C.J. and Martland, Judson, Ritchie, Spence, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz and de Grandpré JJ. ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO. Criminal law—Appeal—Jury—Challenge for cause—Exercise of discretion by trial judge in respect of attempt to challenge for cause—Defences—Issue of drunkenness. APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario[1] dismissing an appeal by the appellant against his conviction of non-capital murder. Appeal dismissed. John F. Hamilton, Q.C., and R.G. Thomas, Q.C., for the appellant. R.M. McLeod, for the respondent. The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by THE CHIEF JUSTICE—We do not need to hear you, Mr. McLeod. We agree with the Court of Appeal that the way in which and the grounds on which the trial judge exercised his discretion in respect of the attempt of counsel for the accused to
challenge for cause is not open to objection. Further, we do not agree that there was any error in the disposition made by the Court of Appeal on the other grounds of appeal raised in that Court, nor do we think that in the circumstances of the present case there was any error in the failure to direct the jury on the issue of drunkenness. We would add that in our opinion the procedure outlined by the Court of Appeal for dealing with challenges for cause provides a useful guide for trial judges called on to deal with such challenges. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Appeal dismissed. Solicitors for the appellant: John F. Hamilton and Ronald G. Thomas, Toronto. Solicitor for the respondent: The Attorney General for Ontario, Toronto. [1] (1975), 29 C.C.C. (2d) 279.
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.