Case information
Conduct a refined search of the Supreme Court of Canada database to obtain details on the status of a matter before the Court.
39654
Her Majesty the Queen v. Anthony Raul Alas
(Ontario) (Criminal) (As of Right)
Docket
Judgments on applications for leave to appeal are rendered by the Court, but are not necessarily unanimous.
| Date | Proceeding | Filed By (if applicable) |
|---|---|---|
| 2022-05-04 | Transcript received, 40 Pages | |
| 2022-05-04 | Appeal closed | |
| 2022-04-21 | Formal judgment sent to the registrar of the court of appeal and all parties | |
| 2022-04-21 | Judgment on appeal and notice of deposit of judgment sent to all parties | |
| 2022-04-21 |
Judgment on the appeal rendered, CJ Mo Ka Côt Br Row Mar Kas Ja, The appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C66058, 2021 ONCA 224, dated April 9, 2021, was heard on April 21, 2022, and the Court on that day delivered the following judgment orally: THE CHIEF JUSTICE — Mr. Alas was convicted at trial of second degree murder after he stabbed the deceased six times during an altercation at a bar. A majority of the Ontario Court of Appeal (MacPherson J.A. dissenting) overturned this verdict and ordered a new trial. The Crown appeals to this Court as of right. The sole issue is whether there was an air of reality to the defence of provocation, such that the trial judge erred in failing to put the defence to the jury. This offence pre-dated the amendment to the provocation provision, which applies to offences committed on or after July 17, 2015. We find no error in the trial judge’s determination that there was no air of reality to the defence of provocation. The standard of review for whether there is an air of reality to the defence of provocation is correctness (R. v. Cinous, 2002 SCC 29, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 3, at para. 55). The key issue here is whether there is sufficient evidential basis as to the fourth element of the provocation defence — that the accused acted on the sudden. Taking the evidence at its highest for the accused, for present purposes, the subjective element of the test for provocation has not been met. The accused did not react “on the sudden” before there was time for his passion to cool. It is beyond the range of reasonable inferences to say that Mr. Alas’ reaction to the deceased making a punching/lunging motion at the women was “on the sudden”; rather, it was the culmination of an altercation that Mr. Alas both instigated and anticipated. As he indicated in his statement to the police: a) Mr. Alas was aware that the deceased had an altercation with his friend earlier in the evening, during which the deceased closed a door on her head. b) Mr. Alas was so upset about the deceased’s conduct that he wanted to hit the deceased in the head with a pool cue. He cooled down and did not take this course of action. c) When his fiancée and friend went outside to smoke, he told them that he would follow if he saw the deceased go outside as well: “. . . if I see this guy get up and come out, I’m coming . . . I’ll be right behind him” (A.R., vol. II, at p. 103). d) Mr. Alas observed the deceased preparing to leave the bar. In anticipation, he went outside to join the two women. e) When the deceased came out of the bar, he looked at Mr. Alas’ friend. In response to this look, Mr. Alas responded: “. . . [w]hat the fuck is wrong with you? Do you have a problem”? A verbal altercation ensued involving Mr. Alas, the deceased, and the two women (A.R., vol .II, at p. 104). f) During the verbal altercation, Mr. Alas retrieved a knife from his pants pocket and moved it to his jacket pocket “just in case”. With the knife gripped in his hand, he stared at the deceased. At his police interview, Mr. Alas said that he stared at the deceased in this way in order to “le[t] him know like if you do anything, um, I would jump on you” (A.R., vol. II, at pp. 167-68). g) When Mr. Alas saw the deceased making a fist directed at the women, he immediately jumped in and stabbed him in the throat, although he said that he “wanted to stab him . . . in his chest” (A.R., vol. II, at p. 171). He stabbed the deceased five more times after that. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the conviction is restored. Allowed, no order as to costs |
|
| 2022-04-21 |
Hearing of the appeal, 2022-04-21, CJ Mo Ka Côt Br Row Mar Kas Ja Judgment rendered |
|
| 2022-04-14 | Respondent's condensed book, (Book Form), (Printed version filed on 2022-04-14) | Anthony Raul Alas |
| 2022-04-13 | Appellant's condensed book, (Book Form), (Printed version filed on 2022-04-19) | Her Majesty the Queen |
| 2022-04-07 | Correspondence (sent by the Court) to, Correspondence re: upcoming hearing | |
| 2022-03-31 | Correspondence (sent by the Court) to, Letters of direction regarding the upcoming hearing sent to parties | |
| 2022-03-22 | Notice of appearance, (Letter Form), John Rosen, Lindsay Daviau will appear. John Rosen will present oral argument. , (Printed version due on 2022-03-29) | Anthony Raul Alas |
| 2022-02-04 | Notice of hearing sent to parties | |
| 2022-02-04 |
Appeal hearing scheduled, 2022-04-21 Judgment rendered |
|
| 2022-01-31 | Notice of change of counsel, (Letter Form), Karen Papadopoulos is still counsel of record, but Kevin Rawluk has been added as her co-counsel., (Printed version due on 2022-02-07) | Her Majesty the Queen |
| 2022-01-17 |
Notice of appearance, (Letter Form), Kevin Rawluk and Karen Papadopoulos will be appearing. Kevin Rawluk will present the oral argument. rec'd: amended notice of appearance (rec'd 2022-01-31), (Printed version filed on 2022-03-28) |
Her Majesty the Queen |
| 2021-12-30 | Letter advising the parties of tentative hearing date and filing deadlines (Notice of appeal – As of right) | |
| 2021-10-29 | Letter advising the parties of tentative hearing date and filing deadlines (Notice of appeal – As of right) | |
| 2021-10-08 | Correspondence received from, Ms. Karen Papadopoulos, Re: scheduling of appeal hearing | Her Majesty the Queen |
| 2021-10-08 | Correspondence received from, Ms. Lindsay Daviau, Re: Scheduling of the appeal hearing | Anthony Raul Alas |
| 2021-09-03 | Certificate (on limitations to public access), (Letter Form), (Printed version filed on 2021-09-03) | Anthony Raul Alas |
| 2021-09-03 | Respondent's factum, (Book Form), Completed on: 2021-09-15, (Printed version filed on 2021-09-03) | Anthony Raul Alas |
| 2021-07-13 | Certificate of counsel (attesting to record), (Letter Form), require: proof of service - rec'd 2021-08-19, (Printed version filed on 2021-07-21) | Her Majesty the Queen |
| 2021-07-13 |
Appellant's record, (Book Form), (4 volumes), require: -proof of service (rec'd 2021-08-19), Completed on: 2021-09-15, (Printed version filed on 2021-07-21) |
Her Majesty the Queen |
| 2021-07-13 |
Appellant's book of authorities, (Book Form), require: -proof of service (rec'd 2021-08-19), Completed on: 2021-09-15, (Printed version filed on 2021-07-21) |
Her Majesty the Queen |
| 2021-07-13 |
Appellant's factum, (Book Form), Amended factum rec'd 2021-08-19 require: -proof of service (rec'd 2021-08-19), Completed on: 2021-09-15, (Printed version filed on 2021-07-21) |
Her Majesty the Queen |
| 2021-05-31 | Order on motion to extend time, by DAVID POWER | |
| 2021-05-31 |
Decision on motion to extend time, Acting Registrar David Power, UPON APPLICATION by the appellant for an order extending the time to serve and file their factum, record and, if any, book of authorities to July 30, 2021. AND THE MATERIAL FILED having been read; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: The motion is granted. Granted |
|
| 2021-05-31 | Submission of motion to extend time, Submitted to the Acting Registrar | |
| 2021-05-26 |
Letter acknowledging receipt of a notice of appeal, FILE OPENED 2021-05-26 |
|
| 2021-05-13 | Motion to extend time, (Book Form), Missing: Filing Fee (rec' 07/05/21), Completed on: 2021-07-28, (Printed version filed on 2021-05-27) | Her Majesty the Queen |
| 2021-05-07 | Certificate (on limitations to public access), (Letter Form), (Printed version filed on 2021-05-11) | Her Majesty the Queen |
| 2021-05-07 | Notice of appeal, (Book Form), Require: Filing fee (rec'd 2021-05-31), Completed on: 2021-06-03, (Printed version filed on 2021-05-11) | Her Majesty the Queen |
Parties
Please note that in the case of closed files, the “Status” column reflects the status of the parties at the time of the proceedings. For more information about the proceedings and about the dates when the file was open, please consult the docket of the case in question.
Main parties
| Name | Role | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Her Majesty the Queen | Appellant | Active |
v.
| Name | Role | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Alas, Anthony Raul | Respondent | Active |
Counsel
Party: Her Majesty the Queen
Counsel
Kevin Rawluk
Crown Law Office Criminal, 10th Flr.
720 Bay Street
Toronto, Ontario
M7A 2S9
Telephone: (416) 326-4600
FAX: (416) 326-4656
Email: karen.papadopoulos@ontario.ca
Party: Alas, Anthony Raul
Counsel
Lindsay Daviau
600 - 65 Queen Street West
Toronto, Ontario
M5H 2M5
Telephone: (416) 507-2440
FAX: (416) 205-9970
Email: johnrosen@rosenlaw.ca
Agent
100- 340 Gilmour Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K2P 0R3
Telephone: (613) 695-8855 Ext: 102
FAX: (613) 695-8580
Email: mfmajor@supremeadvocacy.ca
Summary
Keywords
Criminal law — Defences — Provocation — Air of reality — Whether the majority of the Court of Appeal erred in finding an air of reality to the defence of provocation.
Summary
Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.
The respondent was convicted by a jury of second degree murder. At the pre charge conference, both parties had agreed that there was no air of reality to a defence of provocation, and the trial judge ruled that the defence should not be put to the jury. The respondent appealed his conviction, alleging that the trial judge had erred in failing to open the defence of provocation. A majority of the Court of Appeal for Ontario held that provocation should have been put to the jury, set aside the conviction, and ordered a new trial. In dissent, MacPherson J.A. would have upheld the conviction.
Lower court rulings
Ontario Superior Court of Justice
C6256
See file
Court of Appeal for Ontario
C66058; 2021 ONCA 224
Appeal allowed, conviction set aside, new trial ordered.
Memorandums of argument on application for leave to appeal
The memorandums of argument on an application for leave to appeal will be posted here 30 days after leave to appeal has been granted unless they contain personal information, information that is subject to a publication ban, or any other information that is not part of the public record. You may also obtain copies of the memorandum by filing out the Request for Court records form or by contacting the Court’s Records Centre either by email at records-dossiers@scc-csc.ca or by telephone at 613‑996‑7933 or at 1‑888‑551‑1185.
If you have questions about a memorandum of argument or want to use a memorandum of argument, please contact the author of the memorandum of argument directly. Their name appears at the end of the memorandum of argument. The contact information for counsel is found in the “Counsel” tab of this page.
Downloadable PDFs
Not available
Related links
Factums on appeal
The factums of the appellant, the respondent and the intervener will be posted here at least 2 weeks before the hearing unless they contain personal information, information that is subject to a publication ban, or any other information that is not part of the public record. You may also obtain copies of factums by filling out the Request for Court records form or by contacting the Court’s Records Centre either by email at records-dossiers@scc-csc.ca or by telephone at 613‑996‑7933 or at 1‑888‑551‑1185.
If you have questions about a factum or want permission to use a factum, please contact the author of the factum directly. Their contact information appears on the first page of each factum.
Downloadable PDFs
Not available