R. v. Leblanc
- Citation
- [1989] 1 SCR 1583
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 13 June 1989
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal as of Right to the Supreme Court of Canada From the New Brunswick Court of Appeal
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 13 June 1989
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal as of Right to the Supreme Court of Canada From the New Brunswick Court of Appeal
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Supreme Court held there was no legal error in the trial judge's charge; the Court of Appeal therefore erred in finding the charge insufficient and in overturning the jury's conviction, so the acquittal was set aside and the conviction restored.
Court disposition
Appeal allowed; acquittal set aside; jury conviction restored.
Orders
- Appeal allowed.
- Acquittal set aside.
- Conviction restored by the jury.
02
Material facts
Parties
Her Majesty The Queen
Appellant Counsel: Graham J. SleethRonald LeBlanc
Respondent Counsel: Steven M. Hutchinson03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal as of Right to the Supreme Court of Canada From the New Brunswick Court of Appeal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
Whether the trial judge's charge to the jury was insufficient in law in a prosecution for uttering threats
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The Crown argued the trial judge's charge to the jury was legally adequate and the Court of Appeal erred in concluding otherwise.
- Respondent
- The respondent argued the trial judge's charge was insufficient in law, justifying the Court of Appeal's allowance of the appeal from conviction.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Supreme Court of Canada (this judgment)
A trial judge must adequately instruct the jury on the legal elements of the offence and the required mental element.
- 02
Supreme Court of Canada (this judgment)
An appellate court should not overturn a jury conviction for an alleged defective charge absent a legal error that affects the safety of the verdict.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Supreme Court held there was no legal error in the trial judge's charge; the Court of Appeal therefore erred in finding the charge insufficient and in overturning the jury's conviction, so the acquittal was set aside and the conviction restored.
Court disposition
Appeal allowed; acquittal set aside; jury conviction restored.
- Appeal allowed.
- Acquittal set aside.
- Conviction restored by the jury.
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of Canada · 13 June 1989
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 June 1989
R. v. Leblanc Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1989-06-13 Report [1989] 1 SCR 1583 Case number 21144 Judges Dickson, Robert George Brian; Lamer, Antonio; Wilson, Bertha; La Forest, Gérard V.; Sopinka, John; Gonthier, Charles Doherty; Cory, Peter deCarteret On appeal from New Brunswick Subjects Criminal law Notes SCC Case Information: 21144 Decision Content R. v. Leblanc, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1583 Her Majesty The Queen Appellant v. Ronald LeBlanc Respondent Indexed as: R. v. Leblanc File No.: 21144. 1989: June 13. Present: Dickson C.J. and Lamer, Wilson, La Forest, Sopinka, Gonthier and Cory JJ. on appeal from the court of appeal for new brunswick Criminal law ‑‑ Trial procedure ‑‑ Uttering a threat ‑‑ Charge to the jury ‑‑ Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining what the trial judge's charge to the jury was insufficient in law. APPEAL as of right from a judgment of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal (1988), 90 N.B.R. (2d) 63, 44 C.C.C. (3d) 18, 66 C.R. (3d) 134, allowing an appeal from a conviction of uttering threats. Appeal allowed. Graham J. Sleeth, for the appellant. Steven M. Hutchinson, for the respondent. The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by The Chief Justice ‑‑ We find no error in the trial judge's charge to the jury and accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the acquittal, and restore the conviction by the jury. Judgment accordingly. Solicitor for the appellant: Office of the Attorney General, Fredericton. Solicitors for the respondent: Delaney & Hutchinson, Campbellton.
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.