R. v. Dufresne
- Citation
- [1988] 1 SCR 1095
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 21 June 1988
- Posture
- Criminal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Quebec Court of Appeal
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 21 June 1988
- Posture
- Criminal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Quebec Court of Appeal
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Court held that the allegations and supporting evidence created serious doubt about the integrity of Crown and police conduct at trial, that the Court of Appeal erred in refusing the appellant the opportunity to complete his evidence on those allegations, and that the Court of Appeal misapplied s.613(1)(b)(iii); accordingly the appeal must be allowed, the conviction set aside and a new trial ordered.
Court disposition
Appeal allowed; judgment of the Court of Appeal set aside; new trial ordered
Orders
- Appeal allowed
- Judgment of the Court of Appeal set aside
- New trial ordered
- Application for a stay of proceedings and for exemplary damages should be made to the trial judge or a judge of the same court
02
Material facts
Parties
Gilles Dufresne
Appellant Counsel: Guy BertrandHer Majesty The Queen
Respondent Counsel: Richard Shadley; Josef MuskatelAmounts and remedies
- Case Number: 20,687
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Quebec Court of Appeal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether allegations and evidence of Crown and police misconduct (including nondisclosure of perjury and improper recording/transmission of excluded witness testimony) undermined the integrity of the trial
- 02
Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing the appellant the opportunity to complete his evidence on these allegations
- 03
Whether s.613(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code was correctly applied by the Court of Appeal
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Appellant argued that grave allegations and supporting evidence cast serious doubt on the integrity of the Crown and police conduct at trial, including failure to disclose that a Crown witness had perjured himself after being promised a pardon and that a police officer recorded excluded witness testimony and provided tapes to that witness; the Court of Appeal erred in denying the appellant the chance to complete his evidence and misapplied s.613(1)(b)(iii); a new trial is required.
- Respondent
- Respondent maintained the Court of Appeal properly dismissed the appeal and that there was no sufficient basis to order a new trial; that the Criminal Code provision s.613(1)(b)(iii) was correctly applied by the courts below.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Common law duty of disclosure / trial fairness principles
The Crown and police have a duty to disclose misconduct and not to conceal perjury or promises made to witnesses; failure to do so can vitiate the integrity of a trial
- 02
Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence (this judgment)
Where allegations and evidence, though not conclusive, cast serious doubt on the integrity of the conduct of the prosecution or police, a new trial may be ordered to preserve the integrity of the judicial process
- 03
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C‑34, s. 613(1)(b)(iii)
Section 613(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code governs appellate review in specified circumstances and must be applied correctly by appellate courts
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Court held that the allegations and supporting evidence created serious doubt about the integrity of Crown and police conduct at trial, that the Court of Appeal erred in refusing the appellant the opportunity to complete his evidence on those allegations, and that the Court of Appeal misapplied s.613(1)(b)(iii); accordingly the appeal must be allowed, the conviction set aside and a new trial ordered.
Obiter and limits
- Although the evidence of misconduct was not conclusive, it was sufficient to cast serious doubt on the integrity of the proceedings
- Applications for a stay of proceedings and for exemplary damages should be made to the trial judge or a judge of the same court so the necessary evidence can be adduced
Court disposition
Appeal allowed; judgment of the Court of Appeal set aside; new trial ordered
- Appeal allowed
- Judgment of the Court of Appeal set aside
- New trial ordered
- Application for a stay of proceedings and for exemplary damages should be made to the trial judge or a judge of the same court
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of Canada · 21 June 1988
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· 21 June 1988
R. v. Dufresne Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1988-06-21 Report [1988] 1 SCR 1095 Case number 20687 Judges Beetz, Jean; Lamer, Antonio; Wilson, Bertha; Le Dain, Gerald Eric; La Forest, Gérard V. On appeal from Quebec Subjects Criminal law Notes SCC Case Information: 20687 Decision Content r. v. dufresne, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 1095 Gilles Dufresne Appellant v. Her Majesty The Queen Respondent indexed as: r. v. dufresne File No.: 20687. 1988: June 21. Present: Beetz, Lamer, Wilson, Le Dain and La Forest JJ. on appeal from the court of appeal for quebec Criminal law ‑‑ Trial ‑‑ Accused convicted of first degree murder ‑‑ Serious doubt as to the integrity of the conduct of the Crown and the police at trial ‑‑ New trial ordered. Statutes and Regulations Cited Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C‑34, s. 613(1)(b)(iii). APPEAL from a judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal, [1988] R.J.Q. 38, 11 Q.A.C. 20, dismissing the accused's appeal from his conviction on a charge of first degree murder. Appeal allowed. Guy Bertrand, for the appellant. Richard Shadley and Josef Muskatel, for the respondent. English version of the judgment of the Court delivered orally by 1. Beetz J.‑‑I invite our brother, Justice Lamer, to deliver the judgment of the Court.
2. Lamer J.‑‑There are, in the case at bar, grave allegations and evidence to support them which, although not conclusive, nonetheless cast serious doubt on the integrity of the conduct of the Crown and the police in this matter. The allegations include an allegation that one or more police officers and/or the Crown did not reveal to the court the fact that a Crown witness had perjured himself and misled the court by denying the existence of promises of a pardon which they had indeed made to him; and an allegation that, notwithstanding an order excluding the witnesses, a police officer recorded the testimony and gave the cassettes to this witness‑accomplice from day to day. The Court of Appeal should not, with respect, in view of these special circumstances, have refused to allow appellant to complete his evidence in support thereof. The Court of Appeal also erred afterward in applying s. 613(1) (b)(iii) of the Criminal Code .
3. For these reasons, the appeal is allowed, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside and a new trial is ordered. With respect to the application for a stay of proceedings and exemplary damages, it would be preferable for it to be made to the trial judge or a judge of the same court, where the necessary evidence in support of these applications can be adduced. Judgment accordingly. Solicitors for the appellant: Tremblay, Bertrand, Bois, Mignault, Duperrey & Lemay, Ste‑Foy. Solicitors for the respondent: Shadley, Melançon, Boro & Muskatel, Montréal.
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.