Courville v. The Queen, [1985] 1 SCR 847

Courville v. The Queen, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 847

Daniel Paul Courville     Appellant;

and

Her Majesty The Queen     Respondent.

File No.: 17369.

1985: May 21, 22; 1985: June 13.

Present: Dickson C.J. and Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard, Wilson and Le Dain JJ.

on appeal from the court of appeal for ontario

                   Criminal law ‑‑ Defence ‑‑ Robbery ‑‑ Specific intent ‑‑ Whether loss of self‑control or irresistible impulse caused by voluntary drug induced intoxication provides a defence to a criminal charge in Canada.

                   APPEAL from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal¹ allowing the Crown's appeal from the acquittal of the accused by a County Court judge². Appeal dismissed.

¹ [1982] Ont. D. Crim. Conv. 5270‑02, 8 W.C.B. 425.

² [1982] Ont. D. Crim. Conv. 5290‑04, 7 W.C.B. 368.

                   Alan D. Gold, for the appellant.

                   Edward Then, Q.C., for the respondent.

                   The following is the judgment delivered by

1.                The Court‑‑The appellant accused appeals a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in which that court entered verdicts of guilty, pursuant to its power under s. 613(4)  of the Criminal Code , with respect to charges relating to a bank robbery.

2.                The trial judge found that, though the accused appreciated the nature and quality of his acts, and understood that his acts were unlawful, his conduct was caused by a loss of self‑control or an irresistible impulse, which was, in turn, caused by delusions resulting from voluntary drug induced intoxication. The accused was acquitted on the ground that his state of intoxication raised a reasonable doubt whether he had the necessary specific intent for the offences of which he was charged.

3.                We agree with the Court of Appeal that the trial judge erred in acquitting the accused. Loss of self‑control or irresistible impulse caused by voluntarily induced intoxication is not a defence to a criminal charge in Canada. The Court of Appeal was correct in entering verdicts of guilty on the charges.

4.                This appeal is dismissed.

                   Appeal dismissed.

                   Solicitor for the appellant: Alan D. Gold, Toronto.

                   Solicitor for the respondent: The Attorney General for Ontario, Toronto.