L'aide ou l'encouragement d'une personne lors d'une manifestation ou d'un blocage assimilable à un méfait

R. v. Hockaday, 2025 ONSC 1764

Lien vers la décision

[54]           The leading case in party liability in the context of protests, blockades, or picketing is R. v. Mammolita.[31]  In that case, the accused was part of an illegal picket line and was one of a group of people who stood shoulder to shoulder blocking access to the employer’s premises.  In discussing party liability, the Court noted,

In order to incur liability as an aider or abettor:

(i)                 there must be an act or omission of assistance or encouragement;

(ii)              the act must be done or the omission take place with the knowledge that the crime will be or is being committed;

(iii)            the act must be done or the omission take place for the purpose (i.e., with the intention) of assisting or encouraging the perpetrator in the commission of the crime.

However, the act of assistance or encouragement may be the presence of the accused at the scene of the crime during its commission, if the aider or abettor is there for that purpose.  The strength of numbers may at times be an important source of encouragement.[32]

[55]           In R. v. Romlewski,[33] the summary conviction appeal judge engaged in a comprehensive review of the law of party liability, particularly as it relates to protests or blockades.  From that analysis the following principles respecting party liability in this context can be derived:

•         there must be an act or omission that constitutes assistance or encouragement and is done with knowledge that the assistance or encouragement is for the purpose of aiding a criminal offence;[34]

•         an essential aspect of the analysis is whether the protest, blockade, or picket line is lawful.  If so, then acts in aid of the event may not be criminal depending on the acts themselves;[35]

•         if the purpose of presence is to assist the principals in carrying out their objective and if that objective is unlawful, then presence may be sufficient.[36]   There are situations where ‘strength in numbers’ is important to the unlawful objective.  In that case,  presence also may be sufficient to establish party liability.[37]

•         As noted in R. v. Colford (L.G.) et al., “the acts constituting the actus reus must be such as to lead one to the conclusion that they equate with and tend towards showing a sense of unity or “one-ness” with the acts of the principals so that a definite contribution to the events complained of is proven or necessarily inferred”;[38]