Preview

R. V. Martineau Case Brief

Better Essays
Open Document
Open Document
633 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
R. V. Martineau Case Brief
Case Brief
By: Ashley Tam

R. v. Martineau (1991), 58 C.C.C. (3d) 353 (S.C.C.)

Facts: The appellant, Martineau, was convicted of second-degree murder under s. 213(a) and (d) of the Criminal Code but the decision was overturned by the Alberta Court of Appeal who concluded that s. 213(a) violated ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and could no longer be in effect. The issue was brought before the Supreme Court of Canada whether or not the appeal court was correct in overturning the decision made at trial. On February 7, 1985, Patrick Tremblay and 15 year-old Martineau robbed a trailer and proceeded to kill the owners of the trailer, the McLeans. Evidence shows that Mr. McLean was shot after receiving a beating and Mrs. McLean was shot with a blanket over her head. During the shooting of Mrs. McLean, evidence was found that Martineau said “Lady, say your prayers”. Tremblay and Martineau left the McLeans in the bathroom of the trailer, drove Mr. McLean’s car to the Grand Prairie, and abandoned it.

Legal Issue(s): Does s. 213(a) and (d) of the Criminal Code violate ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and therefore, no longer be in effect?

Held: The appellant was not convicted of second-degree murder under s. 213(a) and (d) of the Criminal Code as it violated ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This decision was made by the Alberta Court of Appeal and held by the Supreme Court of Canada

Ratio Decidendi: (Lamer, J. and Dickson, J.) Section 213(a) and (d) of the Criminal Code defines culpable homicide as murder where a person causes the death of a human being while committing or attempting to commit a range of listed offences, whether or not the person means to cause death or whether or not he or she knows that death is likely to ensue. Section 213(a) of the Criminal Code violated both ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter:
7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and



Cited: Blair, Annice, Kathleen Ryan Elliott, Bonnie Manning, and Marcus Mossuto. "A Legal Handbook: Methods of Legal Inquiry." Canadian and International Law. Toronto: Oxford University Press, 2004. 16, 39. Print. "R. v. Martineau, 1988 ABCA 274 (CanLII)." CanLII. N.p., 30 Aug. 1988. Web. 11 Sept. 2012. <www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/1988/1988abca274/1988abca274.html>.

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    In the Case of Donald Marshall where he was charged for fishing offseason, which went against new regulations that the government has been trying to put into place. Marshall had claimed that “the right to fish on a Treaty of Peace and Friendship signed in 1760-1761 between the British Crown and the Mi’kmaq of what are now the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Quebec” (McGaw, 1), Marshall had the right to fish and hunt offseason due to the fact that his ancestors had fought and signed for him to have that right. The court viewed the Treaty as having no power do to the fact that the policies have changed within Canada, many of the things that were promised in the treaty no longer applied to the current times.…

    • 427 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The respondent Andrews, a British subject permanently resident in Canada. Andrews met all the requirements for the admission to the British Columbia Bar except for Canadian Citizenship, section 42(a) of Barrister and Solicitors Act. He commenced legal action for a declaration that the requirement violated section 15(1) Of the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms; this was dismissed at the trial but allowed on the appeal. The appellants, the Law society of British Columbia and Attorney General of British Columbia, appealed against this declaration that the requirement for Canadian Citizenship infringes the section 15(1) of the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms.…

    • 1016 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Case Analysis

    • 1841 Words
    • 8 Pages

    Bibliography: 1. Kerr, Margaret, JoAnn Kurtz, and Olivo Laurence M.Canadian Tort Law. 3rd. Canada: Thomson Reuters, 2009. Print.…

    • 1841 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Ring Vs Arizona Case Study

    • 1401 Words
    • 6 Pages

    On November 28, 1994, The body of an armored van driver was found dead inside the vehicle. Also, there was more than $800,000 missing from the van leading police to believe that this was a robbery and homicide case. There were no witnesses to the crime except a local bystander who stated that two vehicles, a van and a red truck were speeding down the road earlier that day and had neglected to stop at the intersection where there is a stop sign posted.…

    • 1401 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    In this essay, I will focus on the sentence and police officers’ decision in the Paul Bernanrdo and Karla Hamolka case, both known as “The Ken and Barbie Killers”. Since I am finishing my last year in Social Sciences profile Law, Society and Justice, I am interested to work on a famous Canadian trial that affected the whole Canadian population and even the United States. The decision made by police officers was controversial and brought many debates, thus I will analyze this decision under two ethical theories and determine whether they were right or wrong. For my analysis, I will use the Utilitarianism Ethics and Kantian Ethics. These two theories of ethics have different goals and understanding of rightful and wrongful actions.…

    • 122 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Case Brief - R. v. Hufsky

    • 691 Words
    • 3 Pages

    This case was brought before the Supreme Court of Canada, after a failed appeal in the Court of Appeal, issues concerning whether the non-universal proclamation of S. 234.1 of the Criminal Code infringed on the right to equality before the law, as outlined in S. 1 (b) of the Bill of Rights, the second issue raised in the lower courts was whether the random stopping of cars by police officers infringed on the right not to be arbitrarily detained described by S. 9 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and another major issue raised in the lower courts was whether Mr. Hufsky’s rights were infringed upon…

    • 691 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    November 2001: Truscott and his AIDWYC lawyers file an application for retrial section 696.1 of the Criminal Code of Canada. The Minister only considers whether a miscarriage of justice has occurred.…

    • 740 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Better Essays

    The opposing parties appealing to the Supreme Court of Canada are; Ruth Schaeffer, Evelyn Minty, Diane Pinder, and Ian Scot. In this situation, Ruth Schaeffer happens to be the biological mother of Mr. Schaeffer. Diane Pinder is the sister of the now deceased Minty and Evelyn Minty is the biological mother of one of the slain males. (Doug Minty). What both families have in common is a male member from both sides was shot and killed by police and the officers involved consulted lawyers before writing producing notes detailing what had transpired. Minty was a developmentally delayed male and Schaeffer was a schizophrenic. The Director of Special Investigations in this tragic situation, Ian Scott, received…

    • 1893 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    However the Charter protected the rights of the minority people, because if Canada had more people like James Keegstra Canada would be a very bad place to live in. In 1984, there was a high school teacher with the name of James of Keegstra, and he made no secret to the school his hatred towards the Jewish people. He labeled the Jewish people as “materialistic”, “barbaric”, and “sadistic”. Keegstra also believed that the Jewish people created the Holocaust so that the world would sympathize with them. When he was eventually convicted at trial, he was found guilty and that the government had not violated his fundamental rights. By the Supreme Court doing so, the people now know that the limit is that you have total freedom of expression unless you start accusing and spreading hatred speeches towards them. In conclusion, this impacted the Canadian society by providing people who believed in total freedom an example that even your most important freedoms can be limited. Thanks to the withstanding clause the Supreme Court can limit and tailor fundamental freedoms so that everyone is…

    • 599 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    McLachlin, B. (2004, June 7). Judges of the Court. Retrieved from Supreme Court of Canada: www.scc-csc.gc.ca…

    • 901 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    PHL 612: Philosophy of Law

    • 5890 Words
    • 24 Pages

    PHL 612 Philosophy of Law [Calendar Description]: What is law? What makes something a legal norm? Should citizens always obey the law? What is the relationship between law and morality? This course will explore competing theories of law, such as natural law and positivism, and touch on crucial debates over civil disobedience, purposes of punishment, and interpretation of legal texts. It will deal with contemporary controversies over the legal regulation of human behaviour, for instance in matters of sexual morality.…

    • 5890 Words
    • 24 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Better Essays

    Cited: Canada Classic Edition. Timeline of the Truscott Case. 25 November 2013. 26 August 2007…

    • 1005 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    The case of Dr Henry Morgentaler was unique and one which completely challenged the Canadian justice system, as well as Canadian ideas on liberty. In 1970, after two years of performing abortions on patients, Morgentaler’s practice was raided by the Montreal police force, due to pressure from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), (Cowen, 1984). In Canada, as of 1969, abortions were an extremely limited procedure, as they were only legal if approved by a hospital therapeutic abortion committee, they were not permitted to be performed within a hospital and were only performed if the pregnancy was a threat to the woman’s life, (Marshall & Mclaren, 2013). Morgentaler disagreed with the law in place as he felt that the decision should he that…

    • 797 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    *McKercher, William Russel. The U.S. Bill of Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Toronto: Ontario Economic Council, 1983.…

    • 1875 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    R V. Keegstra Summary

    • 665 Words
    • 3 Pages

    The Supreme Court legal issue was that the Charter violated a constitutional limitation. The Supreme Court states that the laws were a suppression of Keegstra freedom of expression. When Keegstra taught his students that the Jewish people were “profound evil” this was his beliefs. Reason being under section 319(2) of the criminal code applied when dismissing the case on section 2 (b) of the Charter-that his right to freedom of expression was violated. The court also believed that Keegstra’s under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom was violated on the presumption of innocent. As the Charter has infringement justifiable under s.1.The court claimed this that Keegstra should be addressed in regards to the freedom of expression and hate speech. The Justices of the Supreme Court saw Keegstra’s speech as not being victimless, but instead degradation and humiliation. The Supreme Court used this case to set a precedent for the freedom of expression on hate speech cases.…

    • 665 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays