Thériault v. The Queen
- Citation
- [1977] 2 SCR 520
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 18 May 1977
- Posture
- Criminal / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Supreme Court of New Brunswick, Appeal Division
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 18 May 1977
- Posture
- Criminal / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Supreme Court of New Brunswick, Appeal Division
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The jury charge contained substantial errors affecting the fairness of the trial; therefore the convictions were set aside and a new trial was ordered.
Court disposition
Appeal allowed; judgments below set aside; new trial ordered.
Orders
- Appeal allowed
- Judgments below set aside
- New trial ordered
02
Material facts
Parties
Jérôme Thériault
Appellant Counsel: Jean-Claude Angers and Gilles C. ThibodeauHermel Plourde
Appellant Counsel: Jean-Claude Angers and Gilles C. ThibodeauHer Majesty The Queen
Respondent Counsel: A.R. Picard03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Supreme Court of New Brunswick, Appeal Division
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether substantial errors in the jury charge required setting aside the conviction and ordering a new trial
- 02
Whether the indictment was sufficiently clear
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Appellants argued that the charge to the jury contained substantial errors that rendered the trial unfair and warranted a new trial.
- Respondent
- Crown argued that the convictions should be affirmed and that any defect did not warrant a new trial.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Supreme Court of Canada decision in Thériault v. The Queen [1977] 2 S.C.R. 520
Substantial errors in a jury charge that affect the fairness of the trial require a new trial.
- 02
Supreme Court of Canada decision in Thériault v. The Queen [1977] 2 S.C.R. 520
Clarity of the indictment is the responsibility of Crown counsel.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The jury charge contained substantial errors affecting the fairness of the trial; therefore the convictions were set aside and a new trial was ordered.
Obiter and limits
- Court expressed concern about the clarity of the indictment and noted that clarity is a matter for Crown counsel
Court disposition
Appeal allowed; judgments below set aside; new trial ordered.
- Appeal allowed
- Judgments below set aside
- New trial ordered
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of Canada · 18 May 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· 18 May 1977
Thériault v. The Queen Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1977-05-18 Report [1977] 2 SCR 520 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 New Brunswick Subjects Criminal law Decision Content Supreme Court of Canada Thériault v. The Queen, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 520 Date: 1977-05-18 Jérôme Thériault and Hermel Plourde Appellants; and Her Majesty The Queen Respondent. 1977: May 18. Present: Laskin C.J. and Martland, Judson, Ritchie, Spence, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz and de Grandpré JJ. ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW BRUNSWICK, APPEAL DIVISION Criminal law—Conspiracy—Charge to the jury—Substantial errors in charge—New trial ordered. APPEAL from a judgment of the Supreme Court of New Brunswick, Appeal Division, affirming a conviction by Chaiker Abbis Co. Ct. J. sitting with a jury. Appeal allowed. Jean-Claude Angers and Gilles C. Thibodeau, for the appellants. A.R. Picard, for the respondent. The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by THE CHIEF JUSTICE—We are all of the opinion that there must be a new trial in this case. We are concerned about the clarity of the indictment, but that is a matter for Crown counsel to consider. The appeal is accordingly allowed, the judgments below are set aside, and a new trial directed. Appeal allowed, new trial ordered. Solicitors for the appellants: Rice & Angers, Edmunston. Solicitor for the respondent: André Picard, Edmundston.
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.