Collet Dawn Stephan Appellant v. Her Majesty The Queen, 2018 SCC 21

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA Citation : R. v. Stephan , 2018 SCC 21, [2018] 1 S.C.R. 633 Appeal heard: May 15, 2018 Judgment rendered: May 15, 2018 Docket: 37845, 37846 Between: Collet Dawn Stephan Appellant and Her Majesty The Queen Respondent And Between: David Robert Stephan Appellant and Her Majesty The Queen Respondent Coram: Wagner C.J. and Abella, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Gascon, Côté and Rowe JJ. Reasons for Judgment: (paras. 1 to 3) Moldaver J. (Wagner C.J. and Abella, Karakatsanis, Gascon, Côté, and Rowe JJ. concurring)

R. v. Stephan, 2018 SCC 21, [2018] 1 S.C.R. 633 Collet Dawn Stephan Appellant v. Her Majesty The Queen Respondent - and - David Robert Stephan Appellant v. Her Majesty The Queen Respondent Indexed as: R. v. Stephan 2018 SCC 21 File Nos.: 37845, 37846. 2018: May 15. Present: Wagner C.J. and Abella, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Gascon, Côté and Rowe JJ.

on appeal from the court of appeal for alberta Criminal law — Failure to provide necessaries of life — Elements of offence — Charge to jury — Accused couple convicted by jury of failing to provide the necessaries of life to their son — Majority of Court of Appeal affirming convictions — Dissenting judge holding that trial judge did not properly instruct jury on second element of offence and did not properly explain mens rea of offence to jury — New trial ordered.

APPEALS from a judgment of the Alberta Court of Appeal (Watson, McDonald and O’Ferrall JJ.A.), 2017 ABCA 380 , 357 C.C.C. (3d) 10, 395 C.R.R. (2d) 252, 41 C.R. (7th) 424, 61 Alta. L.R. (6th) 26, [2018] 4 W.W.R. 719, [2017] A.J. No. 1203 (QL), 2017 CarswellAlta 2403 (WL Can.), affirming the convictions of the accused for failing to provide the necessaries of life. Appeals allowed. Heather Ferg and Ian McKay , for the appellant Collet Dawn Stephan. Karen B. Molle and Kelsey Sitar , for the appellant David Robert Stephan. Julie Morgan and Colin Schulhauser , for the respondent.

The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by [ 1 ] Moldaver J. — We are in essential agreement with the reasons of Justice O’Ferrall. [ 2 ] In particular, we agree that the learned trial judge conflated the actus reus and mens rea of the offence and did not sufficiently explain the concept of marked departure in a way that the jury could understand and apply it. [ 3 ] Accordingly, we would allow the appeals, quash the convictions and order a new trial. Judgment accordingly. Solicitors for the appellant Collet Dawn Stephan: McKay Criminal Defence, Calgary.

Solicitors for the appellant David Robert Stephan: Karen Molle Law Office, Calgary; Sitar & Milczarek, Calgary. Solicitor for the respondent: Attorney General of Alberta, Calgary.