|
Criminal - Conspiracy. R. v. Stordy
In R. v. Stordy (Ont CA, 2024) the Court of Appeal comments on the conspiracy offence:[54] A helpful comparison is found in the law of conspiracy. In R. v. O’Brien, 1954 CanLII 42 (SCC), [1954] S.C.R. 666, the Supreme Court of Canada held that to prove a conspiracy there must be a true agreement between the co-conspirators. An apparent “agreement” is not sufficient. Rand J. put it this way, at p. 670:I agree that a conspiracy requires an actual intention in both parties at the moment of exchanging the words of agreement to participate in the act proposed; mere words purporting agreement without an assenting mind to the act proposed are not sufficient.
He also held that the intentional uttering of the words “I agree”, rather than an actual intention to carry out the agreement, “is a refinement that seems to me to be out of place in a common law crime”: at pp. 670-671. [55] This approach was followed in United States of America v. Dynar, 1997 CanLII 359 (SCC), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 462, at para. 88. Also, in R. v. Déry, 2006 SCC 53, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 669, Fish J. wrote, at para. 35: “It is thus well established in Canada that there must be actual agreement for a conspiracy to be formed. And actual agreement requires genuine intention.”
|
