31:
264:. Section 213(a) defined culpable homicide as murder if a person causes the death of another human while committing specific indictable offences, such as breaking and entering. One could be charged with murder under section 213(a) despite having neither an intent to kill nor the subjective knowledge that death might ensue from one's actions. That was in contrast to the other murder provisions in the
289:
should be correlated to the severity of the punishment and the social stigma stemming from conviction. Murder is a major indictable offence: both the punishment and stigma stemming from conviction are severe. They were the case so the state must show subjective foresight and intent to prove the
183:
One evening in
February 1985, Patrick Tremblay and 15-year-old Mr. Martineau set out to rob a trailer owned by the McLean family in Valleyview, Alberta. Martineau was armed with a pellet gun and Tremblay was armed with a rifle. Martineau was under the impression they were going to commit only
322:
Chief
Justices. That is because Dickson was Chief Justice at the time of the hearing but retired before the judgment and was replaced by Lamer, who wrote the decision as Chief Justice.
209:
205:
242:
331:
290:
offence. However, as stated above, such a requirement was absent from section 213(a). Thus, the violation was not justifiable under section 1 of the
225:
The issue before the
Supreme Court was whether the appeal court was correct in holding section 213(a) as a violation of sections 7 and 11(d) of the
367:
214:
372:
382:
310:. According to her, subjective foresight of death for the offence of murder was not a principle of fundamental justice.
377:
197:(now section 230(a) and (d)) for both deaths (under section 21(1) and (2)) and was transferred to adult court.
188:
and that no one would be killed. However, during the robbery, Tremblay shot and killed Mr. and Mrs. McLean.
352:
103:
306:
L'Heureux-Dubé J, alone, dissented. She held that section 213(a) did not violate either section of the
123:
348:
237:
The
Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the Appeal Court, holding that section 213(a) violated the
344:
201:
166:
36:
193:
8:
99:
119:
279:. Specifically, it violated the principle of fundamental justice that an appropriate
191:
Martineau was charged with second degree murder under section 213(a) and (d) of the
62:
30:
111:
361:
254:
95:
88:
107:
115:
260:
Section 213(a) is known as the "constructive murder" provision of the
295:
268:, which require a subjective intent and foresight for a conviction.
285:
must be proven by the Crown. Furthermore, the appropriate level of
281:
185:
171:
138:
Lamer CJ, joined by
Dickson CJ and Wilson, Gonthier, and Cory JJ
204:
overturned the decision, holding that section 213(a) violated
332:
List of
Supreme Court of Canada cases (Lamer Court)
200:At trial, Martineau was convicted. On appeal, the
56:Her Majesty The Queen v Roderick Russell Martineau
359:
257:, Wilson, Gonthier and Cory JJ concurring.
253:The Majority was written by Lamer CJC with
275:violated both sections 7 and 11(d) of the
215:Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
360:
13:
14:
394:
337:
29:
368:Section Seven Charter case law
1:
373:Supreme Court of Canada cases
241:and could not be saved under
178:
47:Judgment: September 13, 1990
18:Supreme Court of Canada case
7:
325:
313:
248:
10:
399:
383:Canadian criminal case law
301:
165:, 2 SCR 633 is a leading
378:1990 in Canadian case law
232:
150:
142:
134:
129:
84:
79:
71:
61:
51:
44:
28:
23:
175:requirement for murder.
45:Hearing: March 26, 1990
345:Supreme Court of Canada
202:Alberta Court of Appeal
167:Supreme Court of Canada
37:Supreme Court of Canada
294:because it failed the
271:Section 213(a) of the
186:breaking and entering
104:Claire L'Heureux-Dubé
296:proportionality test
318:The judgment cites
120:Beverley McLachlin
158:
157:
124:William Stevenson
390:
154:L'Heureux-Dubé J
112:Charles Gonthier
100:GĂ©rard La Forest
93:Puisne Justices:
80:Court membership
33:
21:
20:
398:
397:
393:
392:
391:
389:
388:
387:
358:
357:
340:
328:
316:
304:
251:
235:
181:
91:
46:
40:
19:
12:
11:
5:
396:
386:
385:
380:
375:
370:
356:
355:
339:
338:External links
336:
335:
334:
327:
324:
315:
312:
303:
300:
250:
247:
234:
231:
180:
177:
156:
155:
152:
148:
147:
144:
140:
139:
136:
132:
131:
127:
126:
86:Chief Justice:
82:
81:
77:
76:
73:
69:
68:
65:
59:
58:
53:
52:Full case name
49:
48:
42:
41:
34:
26:
25:
17:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
395:
384:
381:
379:
376:
374:
371:
369:
366:
365:
363:
354:
350:
346:
343:Full text of
342:
341:
333:
330:
329:
323:
321:
311:
309:
299:
297:
293:
288:
284:
283:
278:
274:
269:
267:
263:
262:Criminal Code
258:
256:
246:
244:
240:
230:
228:
223:
221:
217:
216:
211:
210:section 11(d)
207:
203:
198:
196:
195:
194:Criminal Code
189:
187:
176:
174:
173:
168:
164:
163:
162:R v Martineau
153:
149:
145:
141:
137:
133:
130:Reasons given
128:
125:
121:
117:
113:
109:
105:
101:
97:
96:Bertha Wilson
94:
90:
89:Antonio Lamer
87:
83:
78:
74:
72:Prior history
70:
66:
64:
60:
57:
54:
50:
43:
39:
38:
32:
27:
24:R v Martineau
22:
16:
347:decision at
319:
317:
307:
305:
291:
286:
280:
276:
272:
270:
265:
261:
259:
252:
238:
236:
226:
224:
219:
213:
199:
192:
190:
182:
170:
169:case on the
161:
160:
159:
108:John Sopinka
92:
85:
55:
35:
15:
255:Dickson CJC
143:Concurrence
362:Categories
351: and
179:Background
116:Peter Cory
243:section 1
206:section 7
146:Sopinka J
67:2 SCR 633
63:Citations
326:See also
314:Comments
287:mens rea
282:mens rea
249:Majority
172:mens rea
135:Majority
308:Charter
302:Dissent
292:Charter
277:Charter
239:Charter
227:Charter
220:Charter
212:of the
151:Dissent
353:CanLII
233:Ruling
349:LexUM
273:Code
266:Code
222:").
208:and
320:two
364::
298:.
245:.
229:.
218:("
122:,
118:,
114:,
110:,
106:,
102:,
98:,
75:-
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
