R. v. Blanchard
- Citation
- 2019 SCC 9
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 13 February 2019
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Quebec Court of Appeal; Judgment Rendered at Supreme Court Level
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 13 February 2019
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Quebec Court of Appeal; Judgment Rendered at Supreme Court Level
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
Because the Crown conceded the availability of the defence of extreme intoxication akin to automatism at trial and before the Court of Appeal, and the trial judge did not err in law, the Supreme Court restored the acquittal and held that the Court of Appeal erred by raising and deciding the issue; the Court declined to decide the broader availability of the defence without an adequate record and full submissions.
Court disposition
Appeal allowed; acquittal restored; conviction entered by the Court of Appeal set aside.
Orders
- Appeal allowed and acquittal restored.
02
Material facts
Parties
Kathleen Blanchard
Appellant Counsel: Giuseppe BattistaHer Majesty The Queen
Respondent Counsel: Maxime Hébrard; Kevin MailhiotAmounts and remedies
- Judges: 9
- Docket Number: 38,258
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Quebec Court of Appeal; Judgment Rendered at Supreme Court Level
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the defence of extreme intoxication akin to automatism is available to a charge of refusing to provide a breath sample
- 02
Whether the Quebec Court of Appeal erred in raising and deciding the availability of that defence after the Crown had conceded it
- 03
Whether the trial judge erred in law in his understanding or application of the defence of automatism
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Appellant argued that the Crown conceded the availability of the defence at trial and on appeal, the Court of Appeal erred in raising and deciding that issue, the trial judge did not err in law, and the acquittal should be restored.
- Respondent
- Respondent (Crown) had conceded availability at trial and at oral argument before the Court of Appeal but argued the Court of Appeal could and should set aside the acquittal and enter a conviction; alternatively the Court of Appeal proceeded to decide the issue despite the concession.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Supreme Court of Canada, R. v. Blanchard (2019 SCC 9)
A court should not overturn an acquittal where the Crown has explicitly conceded a defence and there is no demonstrable legal error by the trial judge
- 02
Supreme Court of Canada, R. v. Blanchard (2019 SCC 9)
Appellate courts should not raise and decide new issues that were conceded by a party without proper record, full submissions and notice to affected parties
- 03
Supreme Court of Canada, R. v. Blanchard (2019 SCC 9)
Courts may refrain from deciding novel constitutional questions in the absence of an adequate record and full submissions
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
Because the Crown conceded the availability of the defence of extreme intoxication akin to automatism at trial and before the Court of Appeal, and the trial judge did not err in law, the Supreme Court restored the acquittal and held that the Court of Appeal erred by raising and deciding the issue; the Court declined to decide the broader availability of the defence without an adequate record and full submissions.
Obiter and limits
- Court expressly refrains from deciding the constitutional availability of the defence in the absence of an adequate record, full submissions and notice to proper parties
- These are unusual circumstances that justify restoring the acquittal despite appellate review
Court disposition
Appeal allowed; acquittal restored; conviction entered by the Court of Appeal set aside.
- Appeal allowed and acquittal restored.
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of Canada · 13 February 2019
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· 13 February 2019
R. v. Blanchard Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 2019-02-13 Neutral citation 2019 SCC 9 Report [2019] 1 SCR 486 Case number 38258 Judges Wagner, Richard; Abella, Rosalie Silberman; Moldaver, Michael J.; Karakatsanis, Andromache; Gascon, Clément; Côté, Suzanne; Brown, Russell; Rowe, Malcolm; Martin, Sheilah On appeal from Quebec Notes SCC Case Information Decision Content
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA Citation: R. v. Blanchard, 2019 SCC 9, [2019] 1 S.C.R. 486 Appeal Heard: February 13, 2019 Judgment Rendered: February 13, 2019 Docket: 38258 Between: Kathleen Blanchard Appellant and Her Majesty The Queen Respondent Coram: Wagner C.J. and Abella, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Gascon, Côté, Brown, Rowe and Martin JJ. Reasons for Judgment: (para.
1) Brown J. (Wagner C.J. and Abella, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Gascon, Côté, Brown Rowe and Martin JJ. concurring) R. v. Blanchard, 2019 SCC 9, [2019] 1 S.C.R. 486 Kathleen Blanchard Appellant v. Her Majesty The Queen Respondent Indexed as: R. v. Blanchard 2019 SCC 9 File No.: 38258. 2019: February 13. Present: Wagner C.J. and Abella, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Gascon, Côté, Brown, Rowe and Martin JJ. on appeal from the court of appeal for quebec Criminal law — Defences — Automatism — Extreme intoxication akin to automatism — Accused charged with refusing to comply with demand to provide breath sample — Crown conceding availability of defence of extreme intoxication akin to automatism at trial and during oral argument at Court of Appeal — Court of Appeal erred in raising and deciding availability of defence in view of Crown’s concession —Acquittal restored. APPEAL from a judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal (Doyon, Bouchard and Mainville JJ.A.), 2018 QCCA 1069, [2018] AZ-51506641, [2018] Q.J. No. 5689 (QL), 2018 CarswellQue 5523 (WL Can.), setting aside the acquittal entered by Vanchestein J.C.Q., 2016 QCCQ 9556, [2016] AZ-51324967, [2016] J.Q. no 12000 (QL), and entering a conviction. Appeal allowed. Giuseppe Battista, for the appellant. Maxime Hébrard and Kevin Mailhiot, for the respondent. The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by [1] Brown J. — We would allow the
appeal. At trial and during oral argument at the Court of Appeal, the Crown conceded the availability of the defence of extreme intoxication akin to automatism, to a charge of failing to provide a breath sample. In light of this, and in our respectful view, the majority at the Court of Appeal erred in raising and deciding the availability of that defence. Having regard to the Crown’s concession, we are not persuaded that the trial judge erred in law in his understanding or application of the defence of automatism. In these unusual circumstances, it would not be in the interests of justice to overturn this acquittal, and we therefore restore it. In doing so, however, we expressly refrain from deciding the availability of this defence in the absence of an adequate record on the constitutional issues, full submissions and notice to the proper parties. Judgment accordingly. Solicitors for the appellant: Battista Turcot Israel Corbo, Montréal. Solicitor for the respondent: Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions, Longueuil.
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.