Lavoie et al. v. R.
- Citation
- [1977] 1 SCR 193
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 1 February 1977
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Quebec; Review of Court of Appeal Judgment Setting Aside Trial Judge's Directed Verdict
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 1 February 1977
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Quebec; Review of Court of Appeal Judgment Setting Aside Trial Judge's Directed Verdict
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Court held that the rule in Hodge's Case does not apply to criminal directed verdicts and that a directed verdict is only justified where there is no evidence upon which a jury properly could convict; applying that standard the Court found no error in the Court of Appeal's decision to set aside the trial judge's directed verdict and dismissed the appeal.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Judgment of the Court of Appeal restored, setting aside the Superior Court's directed verdict of acquittal
02
Material facts
Parties
Jean-Paul Lavoie
Appellant Counsel: André Cartier; Bernard LapointeMarcel Girard
Appellant Counsel: André Cartier; Bernard LapointeRobert Linteau
Appellant Counsel: André Cartier; Bernard LapointeMichel Laferrière
Appellant Counsel: André Cartier; Bernard LapointeHer Majesty The Queen
Respondent Counsel: Claude Gagnon03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Quebec; Review of Court of Appeal Judgment Setting Aside Trial Judge's Directed Verdict
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether a directed verdict of acquittal was justified on the record
- 02
Whether the rule in Hodge's Case applies to criminal directed verdicts
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Appellants submitted that the trial judge properly granted a directed verdict because the Crown's evidence was insufficient to support a conviction and the rule in Hodge's Case authorized acquittal in such circumstances.
- Respondent
- The Crown submitted that Hodge's Case is not applicable to criminal directed verdicts; a directed verdict is permissible only where there is no evidence upon which a jury properly could convict (per R. v. Paul), and on the record there was sufficient evidence to preclude a directed verdict, so the Court of Appeal was correct to set it aside.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
R. v. Paul, (1975), 64 D.L.R. (3d) 491, [1977] 1 S.C.R. 181
A directed verdict in a criminal case is justified only where there is no evidence upon which a jury properly could convict
- 02
Hodge's Case (1838), 2 Lewin 227, 168 E.R. 1136; considered in R. v. Paul
The rule in Hodge's Case (1838) does not apply to criminal directed verdicts as a basis for acquittal
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Court held that the rule in Hodge's Case does not apply to criminal directed verdicts and that a directed verdict is only justified where there is no evidence upon which a jury properly could convict; applying that standard the Court found no error in the Court of Appeal's decision to set aside the trial judge's directed verdict and dismissed the appeal.
Obiter and limits
- The Court noted it was unnecessary to hear oral argument from Crown counsel because the legal position was clear and the Court was unanimous
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed
- Appeal dismissed
- Judgment of the Court of Appeal restored, setting aside the Superior Court's directed verdict of acquittal
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of Canada · 1 February 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· 1 February 1977
Lavoie et al. v. R. Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1977-02-01 Report [1977] 1 SCR 193 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 Quebec Subjects Criminal law Decision Content Supreme Court of Canada Lavoie et al. v. R., [1977] 1 S.C.R. 193 Date: 1977-02-01 Jean-Paul Lavoie, Marcel Girard, Robert Linteau and Michel Laferrière Appellants; and Her Majesty The Queen Respondent. 1977: February 1. Present: Laskin C.J. and Martland, Judson, Ritchie, Spence, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz and de Grandpré JJ. ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR QUEBEC. Criminal law—Non-capital murder—Directed verdict only justified in absence of evidence—Rule in Hodge’s Case not applicable—Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, ss. 212, 213, 214, 218. R. v. Paul (1975), 64 D.L.R. (3d) 491, [1977] 1 S.C.R. 181 followed; Hodge’s Case (1838), 2 Lewin 227, 168 E.R. 1136 referred to. APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Appeal for Quebec[1], setting aside a jugment of the Superior Court of criminal jurisdiction, granting a motion for a directed verdict. Appeal dismissed. André Cartier and Bernard Lapointe, for the appellants. Claude Gagnon, for the respondent. The judgment was delivered orally for the Court by THE CHIEF JUSTICE—It will
not be necessary to hear you, Mr. Gagnon. We are all of the opinion that there was no error in the judgment of the Court of Appeal. On the motion by the accused for a directed verdict, the rule in Hodge’s Case[2] does not apply, as this Court held in R. v. Paul[3]. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. Solicitors for the appellants: Lapointe & Roy and J.M. Lavoie, Chicoutimi, and A. Cartier, Quebec. Solicitor for the respondent: Claude Gagnon, Chicoutimi. [1] [1975] C.A. 549. [2] (1838), 2 Lewin 227, 168 E.R. 1 136. [3] (1975), 64 D.L.R. (3d) 491, [1977] 1 S.C.R. 181.
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.