La pertinence de la preuve du mobile

R. v B.E, 2019 BCSC 1442 

Lien vers la décision

[90]        There is in this case what I would categorize as evidence of motive or lack thereof. Lewis v. The Queen, 1979 CanLII 19 (SCC), [1979] 2 S.C.R. 821 at 831, makes clear that motive and intent are distinct concepts in criminal law. The mental element of a crime ordinarily involves no reference to motive, and motive need not be proven. However, as Lewis summarizes at 833-838, evidence of motive may nonetheless be relevant and probative to the matter of intent:

(1)  As evidence, motive is always relevant and hence evidence of motive is admissible;

(2)  Motive is no part of the crime and is legally irrelevant to criminal responsibility. It is not an essential element of the prosecution's case as a matter of law;

(3)  Proved absence of motive is always an important fact in favour of the accused;

(4)  Conversely, proved presence of motive may be an important factual ingredient in the Crown's case, notably on the issue of intention, when the evidence is purely circumstantial;

(5)  Motive is therefore always a question of fact and evidence; and

(6)  Each case will turn on its own unique set of circumstances. The issue of motive is always a matter of degree.

Lewis remains good law: see R. v. Barton, 2019 SCC 33 at paras. 130-132.

[91]        At the same time, as noted by Mr. Justice Punnett in Eli, at para. 178, the fact that the accused's behaviour is inexplicable is not relevant to the issue of intent. While motive may have been relevant evidence for the Crown, lack of motive does not mean a lack of intent.