Propos de la Cour d'appel de l'Alberta quant aux bris de conditions

R. v. Charles, 2006 ABCA 216

Lien vers la décision

[8]               Parliament has provided several indications that s. 145(2)(a)-(b) is one offence, not two separate and distinct offences. First, the fact that neither subsection is intelligible by itself suggests that the section is meant to be read as a whole. More importantly, while subsections (a) and (b) describe different modes of committing the offence of failing to attend, a third method of committing the offence is described in the final words of the section. Thus, there are three, not two ways of committing the offence:

 

·           being at large on an undertaking or recognizance given to or entered into before a justice or judge and failing to attend court (subsection (a));

 

·           having appeared before a court, justice or judge and failing to attend court as thereafter required by the court, justice or judge (subsection (b)); and

 

·           having appeared before a court, justice or judge and failing to surrender in accordance with an order of the court, justice or judge (last paragraph of s. 145(2)).

 

Although the first and second methods of committing the offence could be charged by specifying a subsection of s. 145(2), a charge for the third method could only refer to s. 145(2), without a subsection reference. Had Parliament intended to create discrete offences, it surely would have included a subsection (c), specifically enumerating the third way of committing the offence.

 

[9]               A review of similarly structured provisions of the Criminal Code confirms the conclusion that it is proper to lay a charge under s. 145(2) without referring to a specific subsection. For example, s. 343 describes, in four enumerated subsections, different methods of committing robbery.  However, the crown is not obliged to specify the mode of committing the offence in the charge; a general charge of robbery under s. 343 is adequate: R. v. Luckett,  1980 CanLII 185 (SCC), [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1140. The same observation can be made for the offence of theft, under s. 322(1): the charge need not refer to a specific subsection indicating the mode of committing theft: R. v. McKenzie, 1971 CanLII 174 (SCC), [1972] S.C.R. 409 at 413-15.