|
Criminal - Duress. R. v. Richer
In R. v. Richer (Ont CA, 2025) the Ontario Court of Appeal considered the defence of duress:[16] Duress is a defence that only applies in situations where the accused has been compelled to commit a specific offence under threats of death or bodily harm. ....
....
[18] I see no reviewable error in the trial judge’s ruling on the defence of duress. As the trial judge correctly noted one of the elements of the defence of duress under both statute and common law, as discussed in R. v. Ryan, 2013 SCC 3, [2013] 1 S.C.R. 14, at para. 81, is that there must be an explicit or implicit threat of present or future death or bodily harm.
....
[23] I see no basis to interfere with the trial judge’s conclusion that the appellant’s evidence did not disclose the kind of threat that was required to lend an air of reality to a duress defence. The trial judge’s conclusion is supported by this court’s decision in R. v. Mena (1987), 1987 CanLII 2868 (ON CA), 34 C.C.C. (3d) 304 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 50, where Martin J.A. held that "[t]he threat required to invoke duress may be express or it may be implied" but that “[m]ere fear does not constitute duress in the absence of a threat, either express or implied” (emphasis added). This court has also held that “[a] fearful subordination to the orders of others is miles from the kind of conduct required to bring the duress defence into play”: R. v. Aravena, 2015 ONCA 250, 323 C.C.C. (3d) 54, at para. 89. . R. v. Dhatt
In R. v. Dhatt (Ont CA, 2023) the Court of Appeal considered the defence of duress:[25] The appellant also submits that the trial judge erred in the way she dealt with the defence of duress. I disagree.
[26] In accordance with R. v. Ryan, 2013 SCC 3, [2013] 1 S.C.R. 14, the trial judge outlined the five elements of duress, which may be summarized as follows:(i) that the accused was threatened with death or bodily harm unless he or she committed the offence;
(ii) that the accused reasonably believed the threat would be carried out;
(iii) that the accused had no safe avenue of escape from the harm threatened, evaluated against the actions of a reasonable person in the same circumstances;
(iv) that the threat caused the accused to commit the offence; and
(iv) that the harm caused by committing the offence was not disproportionate to the harm threatened, evaluated against the behaviour we expect of reasonable person in the same circumstances. [27] The trial judge correctly noted that if the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that any of the five elements were not present, the defence of duress was not available to the appellant. She found that the Crown had proven that four of the five elements were not present. In my view, these findings were open to her on the record and are subject to deference on appeal.
|
