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.
39701
Her Majesty the Queen v. Daniel Brunelle
(Quebec) (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) |
|---|---|---|
| 2022-04-07 | Appeal closed | |
| 2022-04-06 |
Transcript received, 44 pages paper copies rec'd: 2022-04-21 |
|
| 2022-03-15 | Formal judgment sent to the registrar of the court of appeal and all parties | |
| 2022-03-15 | Judgment on appeal and notice of deposit of judgment sent to all parties | |
| 2022-03-15 |
Judgment on the appeal rendered, CJ Mo Ka Côt Br Row Mar Kas Ja, The appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montréal), Number 500-10-007001-199, 2021 QCCA 783, dated May 12, 2021, was heard on March 15, 2022, and the Court on that day delivered the following judgment orally: [TRANSLATION] THE CHIEF JUSTICE — The Crown appeals as of right from a decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal. It argues that the majority overstepped its appellate role by reassessing the evidence without identifying any error in the trial judge’s reasoning. The accused claims that he acted in self defence pursuant to s. 34 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C 46. As this Court recently noted in R. v. Khill, 2021 SCC 37, three components must be present for this defence to be successful: (1) the catalyst; (2) the motive; and (3) the response (para. 51). The trial judge rejected the theory of self defence. In her view, the second criterion for this defence was not met. She did not believe that the accused had used force to defend or protect himself from the use or threat of force. In light of her assessment of the evidence, she found rather that the accused had acted out of vengeance. She therefore convicted him of aggravated assault, assault with a weapon and possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace. The majority of the Court of Appeal allowed the accused’s appeal, set aside the guilty verdicts and ordered a new trial on the ground that the trial judge had erred in analyzing the second criterion for self defence. Bachand J.A., dissenting, would instead have dismissed the appeal. Noting that the trial judge’s finding was supported by the evidence, he concluded that it was reasonable and entitled to deference. We are all of the view that the majority of the Court of Appeal erred in intervening in this case, and we agree in part with the reasons of Bachand J.A. When a verdict is reached by a judge sitting alone, there are two bases on which a court of appeal may be justified in intervening because the verdict is unreasonable: (1) where the verdict cannot be supported by the evidence; or (2) where the verdict is vitiated by illogical or irrational reasoning (R. v. Beaudry, 2007 SCC 5, [2007] 1 S.C.R. 190; R. v. Sinclair, 2011 SCC 40, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 3). While the unreasonableness of a verdict is a question of law, the assessment of credibility is a question of fact (R. v. R.P., 2012 SCC 22, [2012] 1 S.C.R. 746, at para. 10). A trial judge’s assessment of the credibility of witnesses may be rejected only where it “cannot be supported on any reasonable view of the evidence” (R. v. Burke, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 474, at para. 7). As Bachand J.A. correctly pointed out, the question in this case was therefore not [TRANSLATION] “whether the finding that the [accused] acted out of vengeance was the only one reasonably open to the judge in light of the evidence adduced”, but rather “whether that finding is sufficiently supported by the evidence and involves no palpable and overriding error” (para. 58, citing Beaudry). Bachand J.A. completed his remarks by noting that the trial judge could find beyond a reasonable doubt that the respondent had acted out of vengeance and not for the purpose of defending himself. We are all of the view that the majority of the Court of Appeal failed to consider the trial judge’s privileged position in assessing the evidence (see Beaudry, at para. 62). The majority faulted the trial judge for failing to consider certain evidence, but it did so without clearly identifying a palpable and overriding error in her analysis. However, “[t]he mere fact that the trial judge did not discuss a certain point or certain evidence in depth is not sufficient grounds for appellate interference” (Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235, at para. 72). The majority could not simply substitute its opinion for that of the trial judge with respect to the assessment of the credibility of witnesses (R. v. Gagnon, 2006 SCC 17, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 621, at para. 23). In the absence of a reviewable error, it should have shown deference. Nor could the majority of the Court of Appeal assert that the trial judge’s finding on the second criterion for self defence was [TRANSLATION] “vitiated by faulty underlying reasoning” (para. 54). A verdict may be considered unreasonable where it is based on illogical or irrational reasoning, such as where the trial judge makes a finding that is essential to the verdict but incompatible with evidence that is uncontradicted and not rejected by the judge (Beaudry, at para. 98; Sinclair, at para. 21). Here, the inference drawn by the trial judge from the evidence was not incompatible with the evidence adduced. On the contrary, her approach was coherent and supported by evidence that was neither contradicted nor rejected. There were no grounds for intervention. For these reasons, we are all of the view that the appeal should be allowed, the guilty verdicts entered by the Court of Québec restored, and the respondent Daniel Brunelle ordered to report to prison authorities within 72 hours of this judgment. Allowed |
|
| 2022-03-15 |
Hearing of the appeal, 2022-03-15, CJ Mo Ka Côt Br Row Mar Kas Ja Judgment rendered |
|
| 2022-03-10 | Respondent's condensed book, (Book Form), (Printed version filed on 2022-03-11) | Daniel Brunelle |
| 2022-03-09 | Correspondence (sent by the Court) to, Correspondence relating to upcoming hearing | |
| 2022-03-07 | Certificate (on limitations to public access), (Letter Form), (Printed version filed on 2022-03-09) | Her Majesty the Queen |
| 2022-03-07 | Appellant's condensed book, (Book Form), (Printed version filed on 2022-03-09) | Her Majesty the Queen |
| 2022-02-24 |
Notice of appearance, Ms. Marie-Hélène Giroux will appear before the Court, and will present oral arguments. |
Daniel Brunelle |
| 2022-02-09 | Correspondence (sent by the Court) to, Letter of direction relating to March hearing | |
| 2022-02-08 |
Notice of appearance, Me Alexandre Dubois and Me Nicolas Abran will appear before the Court, and both will present oral arguments. Amended version received on 2022-02-11 |
Her Majesty the Queen |
| 2021-11-08 | Notice of hearing sent to parties, (sent electronically on 2021-11-09) | |
| 2021-11-08 |
Appeal hearing scheduled, 2022-03-15 Judgment rendered |
|
| 2021-10-29 | Letter advising the parties of tentative hearing date and filing deadlines (Notice of appeal – As of right) | |
| 2021-09-24 | Certificate of counsel (attesting to record), (Letter Form), 24B, (Printed version filed on 2021-09-28) | Daniel Brunelle |
| 2021-09-24 | Certificate (on limitations to public access), (Letter Form), (Printed version filed on 2021-09-28) | Daniel Brunelle |
| 2021-09-24 | Respondent's book of authorities, (Book Form), REQUIRED : proof of service (rec'd 2021-09-29), Completed on: 2021-10-27, (Printed version filed on 2021-09-28) | Daniel Brunelle |
| 2021-09-24 | Respondent's factum, (Book Form), REQUIRED : proof of service (rec'd 2021-09-29), Completed on: 2021-10-27, (Printed version filed on 2021-09-28) | Daniel Brunelle |
| 2021-08-04 | Certificate of counsel (attesting to record), (Letter Form) | Her Majesty the Queen |
| 2021-08-04 | Certificate (on limitations to public access), (Letter Form), 23A - Factum, Record & Book of authorities | Her Majesty the Queen |
| 2021-08-04 | Appellant's book of authorities, (Book Form), Completed on: 2021-09-02, (Printed version filed on 2021-08-09) | Her Majesty the Queen |
| 2021-08-04 | Appellant's record, (Book Form), (7 volumes), Completed on: 2021-09-02, (Printed version filed on 2021-08-09) | Her Majesty the Queen |
| 2021-08-04 | Appellant's factum, (Book Form), Completed on: 2021-09-02, (Printed version filed on 2021-08-09) | Her Majesty the Queen |
| 2021-06-21 | Letter acknowledging receipt of a notice of appeal, FILE OPENED 2021-06-21 | |
| 2021-06-09 | Certificate (on limitations to public access), (Letter Form), (Printed version filed on 2021-06-14) | Her Majesty the Queen |
| 2021-06-09 |
Notice of appeal, REQUIRED : - TC reasons (rec'd 2021-06-21) - Filing fee (rec'd 2021-07-07), Completed on: 2021-07-08, (Printed version filed on 2021-06-14) |
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Brunelle, Daniel | Respondent | Active |
Counsel
Party: Her Majesty the Queen
Counsel
Nicolas Abran
25, rue de Martigny Ouest, bureau D-3
Saint-Jérôme, Quebec
J7Y 4Z1
Telephone: (450) 431-4401 Ext: 64188
FAX: (450) 569-3051
Email: alexandre.dubois@dpcp.gouv.qc.ca
Agent
17, rue Laurier
Bureau 1.230
Gatineau, Quebec
J8X 4C1
Telephone: (819) 776-8111 Ext: 60442
FAX: (819) 772-3986
Email: isabelle.bouchard@dpcp.gouv.qc.ca
Party: Brunelle, Daniel
Counsel
202 - 5100 rue Hutchison
Montréal, Quebec
H2V 4A9
Telephone: (514) 948-2006
FAX: (514) 948-6131
Email: mariehelene.giroux@mhgavocats.com
Summary
Keywords
Criminal law — Appeals — Evidence — Unreasonable verdict — Defence — Self defence — Whether majority erred in law in holding that verdict was unreasonable even though trial judge’s findings of fact were supported by evidence.
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.
In the Court of Québec, the respondent, Daniel Brunelle, was convicted of aggravated assault, assault with a weapon and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose. The offences arose out of an episode of road rage. The trial judge found that the respondent had not acted in self defence. With regard to the second condition for self defence, she did not believe the respondent’s claim that he had used force for the purpose of defending himself. She found that he had instead retaliated and taken revenge.
The Quebec Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the guilty verdicts and ordered a new trial. In the majority’s view, the trial judge had erred in analyzing the second condition for self defence by finding that the accused had sought to take revenge and had done more than defend himself. The judge had not taken account of how quickly everything happened and had not considered all the evidence. Bachand J.A., dissenting, would have dismissed the appeal on the basis that there was no reason to intervene. In his view, the issue was whether the trial judge’s finding that the respondent had acted out of vengeance was sufficiently supported by the evidence and involved no palpable and overriding error. He found that this was the case.
Lower court rulings
Court of Quebec
700-01-150387-168
Convictions for aggravated assault, assault with a weapon and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose
Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montréal)
2021 QCCA 783, 500-10-007001-199
Appeal allowed, convictions set aside and 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