Le fait d'utiliser la violence pour s'échapper après un vol constitue un vol qualifié

R. v. Noonan, 2005 CanLII 51785 (NL PC)

I am persuaded by the logic of the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Lieberman (1970) 11 C.R.N.S. 168 (Ont. C.A.). The court analyzed what was then s. 288(a). The current wording in s. 343(a) is identical. Jessup J.A. spoke for the majority and said at p. 177:

“While it is largely so, the Criminal Code is not solely a codification of the common law. It is a statute which must be construed to ascertain the intention of Parliament by applying the ordinary canons of statutory construction. Among such canons, of course, is the rule that, except where it is unavoidable, effect must be given to every part of a provision in a statute so that a tautologous construction will not result. Under s 288 (a) an intent to steal must be the purpose of, and hence accompany violence employed whether before or at the time of a theft or otherwise in connection with it, as where violence is used to facilitate an escape with the stolen goods.