R. c. Dussault, 2011 QCCQ 3290 (CanLII)
[36] Comme l’invasion de domicile n’est pas un crime spécifiquement défini au Code criminel, le Tribunal s’est penché sur la jurisprudence pertinente à la recherche de critères et de balises pour définir ce type de crime.
[37] Dans R c. Olson [2009] S.J. no 521. :
L’honorable L.D. Dyck, au paragraphe 6 de son jugement, cite la Cour d’Appel de l’Alberta dans R c. Matwiy (1996) 105 C.C.C. (3d) 351 où certains critères ont été mis de l’avant pour définir ce qu’est une invasion de domicile :
« III ANALYSIS
6 In determining the appropriate sentence in this case, I will first consider whether these facts fall within the definition of a "home invasion". The Alberta Court of Appeal in R. v. Matwiy (1996), 105 C.C.C. (3d) 251, found the essential features of a home invasion to be where an individual:
(a) plans to commit a home invasion robbery (although the plan may be unsophisticated), and targets a dwelling with intent to steal money or property, which he or she expects to be found in that dwelling or in some other location under the control of the occupants or any of them;
(b) arms himself or herself with an offensive weapon;
(c) enters a dwelling, which he or she knows or would reasonably expect is occupied, either by breaking into the dwelling or by otherwise forcing his way into the dwelling;
(d) confines the occupant or occupants of the dwelling, even for short periods of time;
(e) while armed with an offensive weapon, threatens the occupants with death or bodily harm; and
(f) steals or attempts to steal money or other valuable property. (at pp. 263-264) »
[38] Pour conclure que monsieur Olson avait bel et bien commis une invasion de domicile, l’honorable Dick ajoute au paragraphe 7 :
« 7 Applying this test, there can be no doubt that the actions of Mr. Olson amount to a "home invasion". Mr. Olson thought for some time about entering the Bush home to steal money and drugs, because he owed money and was planning on leaving town. He believed there would be someone in the home as he disguised himself prior to entering the home. He took a hammer with him when he entered the home. He pushed his way into the dwelling-house and toward the bedroom of one of the occupants with enough force to cause one of the occupants to fall into the kitchen table. He confined one of the occupants in the bedroom by struggling with him and he used the hammer in a threatening or intimidating manner while in the dwelling-house. Finally, he took drugs with him when he left. »
[39] Dans R c. J.S. [2006] O.J. no 2654. :
La Cour d’Appel de l’Ontario, dans un dossier qui concernait un adolescent, s’est aussi penchée sur la notion d’invasion de domicile. L’honorable Blair pour la Cour d’Appel nous dit que bien que ce crime ne soit pas défini au Code criminel de façon spécifique, il n’en demeure pas moins que l’article 348.1 « is an instructive reference point ».
« 29 Although the term "home invasion" is not defined in the Criminal Code or the YCJA, s. 348.1 of the Code provides an instructive reference point. Under the heading "Aggravating circumstances - home invasion", s. 348.1 directs a court sentencing an adult person convicted of unlawful confinement, robbery, extortion, or break and enter in relation to a dwelling house to consider as an aggravating circumstance
the fact that the dwelling-house was occupied at the time of the commission of the offence and that the person in committing the offence.
(a) knew that or was reckless as to whether the dwelling-house was occupied; and
(b) used violence or threats of violence to a person or property. »
[40] L’honorable Blair précise au paragraphe 30 du jugement ce qui distingue l’invasion de domicile de l’introduction par effraction avec vol ou autre crime relatif à la propriété :
« 30 Section 348.1 has no application to sentencing under the YCJA, of course. However, the factors it lists - the types of offences mentioned, committed in the context of an occupied home and accompanied by the use or threat of violence - are common to the notion of home invasion articulated in a number of authorities that have considered the issue, and to which I will refer in a moment. In my view, it is the presence of the occupants of the home, with the violation of their sense of sanctity and security in that place and the attendant exposure to the threat (express or implied) of physical or psychological harm, that sets the home invasion apart from break and enter, robbery, and other offences committed in relation to a home. Such a crime is a "violent offence" within the meaning of s. 39(1)(a) of the YCJA because it is an offence in which the young person "causes, attempts to cause or threatens to cause bodily harm" - physical or psychological. » (ce sont nos soulignés)
[41] Quant aux caractéristiques de l’invasion de domicile, le juge ajoute :
« 32 Consistent with the theme outlined in para. 30 above, there appears to be general agreement in these authorities that the main features of home invasion include breaking and entering a dwelling place for purposes of committing a theft or robbery, knowing that (or being reckless as to whether) the home is being occupied, and using or threatening to use violence. The presence of weapons is often a factor, as is the confinement of the occupants of the home in some fashion.
33 For the offence to qualify as a home invasion, I would add to the foregoing that the entry to the dwelling need not be only for the purposes of robbery or theft - or result in those offences being committed. The crimes committed within the dwelling may include other offences involving violence against the person, as, for example, assault, sexual assault, or unlawful confinement.2 »
Aucun commentaire:
Publier un commentaire