R v Lavallee

Last updated
R v Lavallee
Supreme court of Canada in summer.jpg
Supreme Court of Canada
Hearing: October 31, 1989
Judgment: May 3, 1990
Full case nameAngelique Lyn Lavallee v Her Majesty The Queen
Citations [1990] 1 S.C.R. 852
Docket No.21022 [1]
Prior historyOn appeal from Court of Appeal for Manitoba
RulingLavallee appeal allowed
Court membership
Chief Justice: Brian Dickson
Puisne Justices: Antonio Lamer, Bertha Wilson, Gérard La Forest, Claire L'Heureux-Dubé, John Sopinka, Charles Gonthier, Peter Cory, Beverley McLachlin
Reasons given
MajorityWilson, joined by Dickson, Lamer, L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier and McLachlin
ConcurrenceSopinka
La Forest and Cory took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

R v Lavallee, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 852 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada case on the legal recognition of battered woman syndrome. [2] [3] The judgment, written by Justice Bertha Wilson, is generally considered one of her most famous. [4] The court held in favour of allowing battered woman syndrome to explain how the mental conditions for self-defence were present in this case, and Lavallee's acquittal was restored. [5]

Contents

Background

Angelique Lynn Lavallee was in an abusive common law relationship with Kevin Rust. In the early morning hours of 31 August 1986, during a particularly serious fight Rust threatened to harm her, saying "either you kill me or I'll get you" per her statement to the police. [5] During the altercation Rust slapped her, pushed her and hit her twice on the head. At some point during the altercation he handed Lavallee a gun, which she first fired through a window screen. Lavallee first contemplated shooting herself; however when Rust turned around to leave the room she shot him in the back of the head. At trial, Lavallee argued self-defence, and had a psychiatrist testify in her support. He explained the effects of her circumstances on her mental state and that in the state she was in she felt she was going to be killed and had no alternative but to shoot him. Lavallee did not testify. The jury acquitted Lavallee. [5]

On appeal by the Crown, the verdict was overturned by the Supreme Court of Manitoba in 1988, and a new trial was ordered. [2] The court ruled that the psychiatrist had given inadmissible testimony regarding past abuse that were unsubstantiated by hospital visits or police statements, and that the judge in that case had not properly instructed the jury regarding this. [5]

Lavallee appealed the decision by the Manitoba Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the original acquittal on 5 May 1990 in a unanimous decision. [3] [5]

Reasons of the court

At issue before the Supreme Court was whether the expert evidence on battered woman syndrome was admissible. [2]

Justice Bertha Wilson, writing for the court, held that expert evidence is often needed when stereotypes and stigmatisation are inherent in a person's reasoning. In particular here, the woman's experience and perspective is relevant to the reasonable person's standard required for self-defence. Additionally, the justice wrote that sufficient evidence was given for the jury to have potentially reached the same conclusion without the psychiatrist's testimony. [5]

Justice John Sopinka added in a concurring opinion that, had there been no evidence supporting the psychiatrist's testimony, it would have been reasonable to discount it. However, sufficient evidence was given to support his expert's statements, and the jury was therefore entitled to rely on his testimony. [5]

Legacy

In 2012, Canadian parliament passed reforms to Section 34 of the criminal code to include consideration of "the extent to which the use of force was imminent" (section 34[2][b]) [6] and "the nature, duration and history of any relationship between the parties to the incident, including any prior use or threat of force and the nature of that force or threat" (section 34[2][f]) [6] in assessment of self-defence claims, codifying a portion of Justice Wilson's opinion in Lavallee. [7]

The Lavallee decision has also been applied to criminal sentencing for women who experienced abuse. in R v Naslund, the Alberta Court of Appeal ruled that a woman who pled guilty to killing her husband after years of abuse had received too high a sentence. Justice Sheila Greckol cited Lavallee in her majority opinion, stating that it is “beyond time for this Court to explicitly recognize that cases of battered women killing abusive partners involve unique circumstances that must be considered by the sentencing judge”. [8]

See also

Related Research Articles

The urban survival syndrome, in United States jurisprudence, can be used either as a defense of justification or of excuse. The first case using, unsuccessfully, the defense of "urban survival syndrome" is the 1994 Fort Worth, Texas murder trial of Daimion Osby.

<i>R v Morgentaler</i> 1988 Supreme Court of Canada decision legalizing abortion

R v Morgentaler, [1988] 1 SCR 30 was a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which held that the abortion provision in the Criminal Code was unconstitutional because it violated women's rights under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter") to security of the person. Since this ruling, there have been no criminal laws regulating abortion in Canada.

Claire L'Heureux-Dubé is a retired Canadian judge who served as a puisne justice on the Supreme Court of Canada from 1987 to 2002. She was the first woman from Quebec and the second woman appointed to this position, after Bertha Wilson. Previously, she had been one of the first woman lawyers to handle divorce cases, and was the first woman appointed as a judge to the Quebec Superior Court and the Quebec Court of Appeal.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bertha Wilson</span> First woman judge on Supreme Court of Canada

Bertha Wernham Wilson was a Canadian jurist and the first female puisne justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. Before her ascension to Canada's highest court, she was the first female associate and partner at Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt and the first woman appointed to the Court of Appeal for Ontario. During her time at Osler, she created the first in-firm research department in the Canadian legal industry.

Battered woman syndrome (BWS) is a pattern of signs and symptoms displayed by a woman who has suffered persistent intimate partner violence—psychological, physical, or sexual—from her male partner. It is classified in the ICD-9 as battered person syndrome, but is not in the DSM-5. It may be diagnosed as a subcategory of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Victims may exhibit a range of behaviors, including self-isolation, suicidal thoughts, and substance abuse, and signs of physical injury or illness, such as bruises, broken bones, or chronic fatigue.

<i>Delgamuukw v British Columbia</i> 1977 Supreme Court of Canada case

Delgamuukw v British Columbia, [1997] 3 SCR 1010, also known as Delgamuukw v The Queen, Delgamuukw-Gisday’wa, or simply Delgamuukw, is a ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada that contains its first comprehensive account of Aboriginal title in Canada. The Gitxsan and Wet’suwet’en peoples claimed Aboriginal title and jurisdiction over 58,000 square kilometers in northwest British Columbia. The plaintiffs lost the case at trial, but the Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal in part and ordered a new trial because of deficiencies relating to the pleadings and treatment of evidence. In this decision, the Court went on to describe the "nature and scope" of the protection given to Aboriginal title under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, defined how a claimant can prove Aboriginal title, and clarified how the justification test from R v Sparrow applies when Aboriginal title is infringed. The decision is also important for its treatment of oral testimony as evidence of historic occupation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ian Binnie</span> Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada from 1998 to 2011

William Ian Corneil Binnie is a former puisne justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, serving from January 8, 1998 to October 27, 2011. Of the justices appointed to the Supreme Court in recent years, he is one of the few appointed directly from private practice. On his retirement from the Court, he was described by The Globe and Mail as "arguably the country's premier judge", by La Presse as "probably the most influential judge in Canada of the last decade" and by the Toronto Star as “one of the strongest hands on the court.”

Section 11 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the section of the Canadian Constitution that protects a person's legal rights in criminal and penal matters. There are nine enumerated rights protected in section 11.

<i>R v Béland</i> Case of the Supreme Court of Canada

R v Béland [1987] 2 S.C.R. 398 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision where the Court rejected the use of polygraph results as evidence in court.

In English law, provocation was a mitigatory defence to murder which had taken many guises over generations many of which had been strongly disapproved and modified. In closing decades, in widely upheld form, it amounted to proving a reasonable total loss of control as a response to another's objectively provocative conduct sufficient to convert what would otherwise have been murder into manslaughter. It only applied to murder. It was abolished on 4 October 2010 by section 56(1) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, but thereby replaced by the superseding—and more precisely worded—loss of control defence.

<i>Pappajohn v R</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Pappajohn v R, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 120 is a famous Supreme Court of Canada decision on the criminal defence of mistake of fact.

<i>Lewis v R</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Lewis v R, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 821 is a famous decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the relevance of motive in a criminal trial. The Court held that motive is never an essential element of a criminal offence but can be used as evidence to prove intent.

<i>R v Mohan</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Mohan, 1994 CanLII 80, [1994] 2 SCR 9 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the use of expert witnesses in trial testimony.

<i>R v Stevens</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Stevens, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 1153, was a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada rendered on June 30, 1988, concerning the retrospective application of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

<i>Azoulay v R</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Azoulay v R, [1952] 2 S.C.R. 495 was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on abortion in Canada. The court found that with evidence so complicated, a judge should summarize it to a jury.

<i>R v Marquard</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Marquard, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 223, is a leading case of the Supreme Court of Canada on the admissibility of expert testimony.

<i>R v W (D)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v W (D), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on assessing guilt based on the credibility of witnesses in a criminal trial. More specifically, W.D. examines sexual assault cases and burdens of proof in evidence law.

<i>R v Coote</i> Canadian constitutional law case – 1873

R v Coote is a Canadian constitutional law decision in 1873 dealing with the powers of the provinces under the British North America Act, 1867. The point in issue was whether Quebec had the constitutional authority to create a mandatory inquiry power for provincial fire commissioners.

<i>R v Henry</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Henry [2005] 3 S.C.R. 609 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada case on the protection against self-incrimination in section 13 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court ruled that the Crown may use the accused's previous voluntarily given testimony to incriminate or impeach credibility in a retrial if the accused again chooses to testify at said retrial. The court further held that no distinction should be drawn between the use of such evidence to incriminate the accused directly or to impeach their credibility. The Court partially restored this distinction in R. v. Nedelcu, 2012 SCC 59.

Richard Jamieson Scott was a Canadian jurist who served as Chief Justice of Manitoba. In that capacity, he presided over the Manitoba Court of Appeal from 1990 to 2013. Among his most notable decisions are those in the cases Rebenchuk v Rebenchuk (2007), Manitoba Métis Federation Inc v Canada et al. (2010), O'Brien v Tyrone Enterprises Ltd (2012), and, while he was on the Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba, R v Lavallee.

References

  1. ↑ SCC Case Information - Docket 21022 Supreme Court of Canada
  2. 1 2 3 Morris, Christopher and Marilyn Pilon (5 November 1992). "The Battered Wife Defence: The Lavallee Case". Government of Canada Publications. Retrieved 4 September 2024.
  3. 1 2 Shaffer, Martha (1990). "R. v. Lavallee: A Review Essay" (PDF). Ottawa Law Review. 22 (3): 607–624.
  4. ↑ "Bertha Wilson". The Gruber Foundation. Retrieved 4 September 2024.
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 "Supreme Court Judgments: R. v. Lavallee, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 852". Supreme Court of Canada. 3 May 1990. Retrieved 4 September 2024.
  6. 1 2 "Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act, Revised Statutes of Canada 2012 c. 9". justice.gc.ca. 2012. Retrieved 4 September 2024.
  7. ↑ "Bill C-26 (S.C. 2012 c. 9) Reforms to Self-Defence and Defence of Property: Technical Guide for Practitioners". justice.gc.ca. Retrieved 4 September 2024.
  8. ↑ Koshan, Jennifer (29 April 2022). "Choice vs Coercive Control: The Alberta Court of Appeal Decision in R v Naslund". ablawg.com. Retrieved 4 September 2024.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.