Les éléments constitutifs de l'infraction de vol qualifié

R. v. Killam, 2007 ABPC 113 (CanLII)

[37] In R. v. Saunders, [1996] O.J. No. 518 (Ont. Ct. Justice – Gen. Div.), Watt, J., at paragraphs 32-34, analyzed section 343(a) as follows (and I respectfully adopt this analysis):

— 32 Robbery under s. 343(a) requires proof of:

i stealing; and

ii the use of violence, actual or threatened, to a person or property

— 33 “Stealing” means the commission of theft. “Violence” is not defined in the Criminal Code. It involves the exercise of physical force so as to inflict injury on or damage to persons or property. It includes force or strength of physical action. Actual violence is not required under s. 343(a). Threatened violence is sufficient. The violence need not be directed towards the victim of the stealing. It is sufficient if it is directed against a person, for that matter property. What is necessary is some act of violence or some demonstration from which, inter alia, physical injury to the person robbed may be reasonably apprehended in all the circumstances. See, R. v. Sayers and McCoy reflex, (1983), 8 C.C.C. (3d) 572 (Ont. C.A.).

— 34 Under s. 343(a), it is critical that the violence be administered or threatened for a proscribed purpose, that is to say,

i to extort whatever is stolen;

ii to prevent resistance to the stealing; or,

iii to overcome resistance to the stealing.

No other purpose will suffice. The purpose which accompanies the act of actual or threatened violence may be inferred from the circumstances surrounding it.