« Complot (infraction) » : différence entre les versions

|OffenceTitle=Conspiracy

|OffencePage=Conspiracy

|Act={{OBCCC}}  

|CrownElection= {{OBIndictableElection}} (465(1)(b) and (c))<br> {{OBSummaryElection}} (465(1)(d))  

|Jurisdiction=s. 465(1)(b), (c):<br>{{OBJurisdictionAll}}<br>s. 465(1)(a):<br>{{OBJurisdictionExclusive}}<br>s.465(1)(d):<br>{{OBJurisdictionSumm}}  

|IndictableMax= {{OBTime|5, 10 years}} or {{OBMaxLife}} }}

{{OverviewXIII|conspiracy}}

{{PleadingsExclusive|art. 465(1)(a) {{DescrSec|465(1)(a)}} }}

{{PleadingsIndictElection|art. 465(1)(b) and (c)}}

{{PleadingsSummary|art. 465(1)(d) {{DescrSec|465(1)(d)}}}}

|art. 465(1)(a), (b) || {{ReleaseProfile-Indictable}}  

|art. 465(1)(d) {{DescrSec|465(1)(d)}} || {{ReleaseProfile-Hybrid}}  

{{ReleaseOptions-Indictable|art. 465(1)(a), (b)}}

{{ReleaseOptions-Hybrid|art. 465(1)(d) {{DescrSec|465(1)(d)}} }}

|art. 465(1)(a) {{DescrSec|465(1)(a)}},<br>s. 465(1)(b)(i) {{DescrSec|465(1)(b)(i)}},<br>s. 465(1)(b)(ii) {{DescrSec|465(1)(b)(ii)}},<br>s. 465(1)(c) {{DescrSec|465(1)(c)}},<br>s. 465(1)(d) {{DescrSec|465(1)(d)}}  || {{OKMark}} <!--wire--> || {{OKMark}} <!--DO-->||{{OKMark}} <!--SPIO--> || {{XMark}} <!--consent--> || {{OKMark}}

{{removed|(3), (4), (5), (6) and (7)}}

===Draft Form of Charges===

{{seealso|Draft Form of Charges}}

|"{{ellipsis1}} contrary to section 465{{CCC}}."

|"{{ellipsis1}} contrary to section 466{{CCC}}."

# {{box}} the words communicated in the conspiracy

# {{box}} there was an agreement made between the parties

# {{box}} the parties had an intention to agree to put a "common design into effect" and did in fact agree

# {{box}} the parties did not change their minds or intention to put common design into effect

==Interpretation==

The purpose of criminalizing conspiracies is to "prevent an unlawful object" from being fulfilled and then "prevent[ing] serious harm from occurring". Parliament intended to intervene "earlier along the continuum of the increased danger represented by a cohort or wrongdoers acting in concert."<ref>

{{CanLIIRP|Dery|1q1hs|2006 SCC 53 (CanLII)|[2006] 2 SCR 669}}{{perSCC-H|Fish J}}{{atL|1q1hs|44}}<br>  

{{CanLIIRP|Meyer|fvj4v|2012 ONCJ 791 (CanLII)|[2012] OJ No 6235}}{{perONCJ|Pacciocco J}}{{atL|fvj4v|21}}("The law of conspiracy achieves this policy [of preventing serious harm from occurring] by allowing a pre-emptive strike where there is a true agreement to achieve a mutual criminal objective.")

A conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to do an unlawful act.<ref>

{{CanLIIRP|O'Brien|21v9k|1954 CanLII 42|[1954] SCR 666}}{{perSCC|Taschereau J}}{{atps|668-9}}<br>

See: {{CanLIIRP|Paradis|fsmsh|1933 CanLII 75 (SCC)|[1934] SCR 165}}{{perSCC|Rinfret J}}{{atp|186}} - defines as two or more persons agreeing to act in concert in pursuit of a common goal<br>

There must be an "intention to agree, the completion of an agreement and a common design."<ref>

{{CanLIIRPC|United States of America v Dynar|1fr0t|1997 CanLII 359 (SCC)|[1997] 2 SCR 462}}{{perSCC|Cory and Iacobucci JJ}}{{atL|1fr0t|86}}<br>

{{CanLIIRP|Root|2200k|2008 ONCA 869 (CanLII)|[2008] OJ No 5214 (OCA)}}{{perONCA-H|Watt JA}}{{atL|2200k|66}}</ref>

The Crown needs only prove that there was "a meeting of the minds with regard to a common design to do something unlawful."<ref>

To prove conspiracy the facts must satisfy a three-part Carter test:<ref>

{{CanLIIRP|Carter|1z1c7|1982 CanLII 35 (SCC)|[1982] 1 SCR 938}}{{perSCC-H|McIntyre J}}</ref>

# has the Crown proven beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of the conspiracy?

# has the Crown proven that the accused was on balance a member of the conspiracy?

# considering all of the evidence, including hearsay evidence, is the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of being a member of the conspiracy?

 

A conspiracy must include (1) an agreement and (2) the unlawful objective or "common design."<ref>

{{supra1|O'Brien}}{{atsL|21v9k|2| to 3}}, ("It is of course, essential that the conspirators have the intention to agree, and this agreement must be complete ... there must exist an intention to put the common design into effect.")<br>

As well, the unlawful objective does not need to come about. It is the planning that is the criminal act.<ref>

{{supra1|O'Brien}}{{atL|21v9k|4}} ("The law punishes conspiracy so that the unlawful object is not attained. It considers that several persons who agree together to commit an unlawful act, are a menace to society, and even if they do nothing in furtherance of their common design, the state intervenes to exercise a repressive action, so that the intention is not materialized, and does not become harmful to any one.")

A conspiracy made over the telephone will occur within the jurisdiction of both calling parties.<ref>

Both legal and factual impossibility are not defences to an allegation of conspiracy.<ref>

{{supra1|Dynar}}{{atL|1fr0t|105}} (It is not relevant whether "from an objective point of view, commission of the offence may be impossible.")</ref>

It is not necessary to prove that the predicate offence was actually committed.<ref>

See {{CanLIIRP|Koufis|fsmws|1941 CanLII 55 (SCC)|[1941] SCR 481, 76 CCC 161 (SCC)}}{{perSCC|Taschereau J}}<br>

The fact that the co-conspirators are unidentified does not result in a failure to prove the offence of conspiracy.<ref>

===Agreement===

The agreement is the essence of the offence of conspiracy.<ref>

{{CanLIIRP|Papalia|1tx7p|1979 CanLII 38 (SCC)|[1979] 2 SCR 256}}{{perSCC|Dickson J}} ("The essence of criminal conspiracy is proof of agreement...")

An agreement can be implied or tacit. It requires a meeting of the minds to create a common intention to commit an offence.

The parties must have knowledge of a common goal and agreement to achieve it.<ref>

{{CanLIIRPC|Atlantic Sugar Refineries Co. v Canada (Attorney General)|1z493|1980 CanLII 226 (SCC)|54 CCC (2d) 373, [1980] 2 SCR 644}}{{perSCC|Pigeon J}}</ref>

There must be a "consensus to effect an unlawful purpose."<ref>

{{supra2|1tx7p|Papalia}} (“two or more persons pursued the same unlawful object at the same time or in the same place; it is necessary to show a consensus to effect an unlawful purpose. ”)<br>

It is not enough that there be a common intention.<ref>

{{CanLIIRP|O'Brien|21v9k|1954 CanLII 42|[1954] SCR 666}}{{perSCC|Taschereau J}}</ref>  

Nor is passive acquiescence to a criminal plan sufficient<ref>

{{CanLIIRP|McNamara|gd1kv|1981 CanLII 3120 (ON CA)|56 CCC (2d) 193}}{{TheCourtONCA}} at 452 ("Mere knowledge of, discussion of or passive acquiescence in a plan of criminal conduct is not, of itself, sufficient")

, knowledge of the plan<ref>

, or nor wilful blindness.

It is not a "formal agreement" and may be implicit.<ref>

Where there is a pre-existing conspiracy, the accused must have adopted it or consented to participate in achieving the goal.<ref>

A conditional agreement can still be an agreement.<ref>

The charge must identify the crime(s) planned.<ref>

{{CanLIIRP|Saunders|1fsvd|1990 CanLII 1131 (SCC)|[1990] 1 SCR 1020}}{{perSCC-H|McLachlin J}}</ref>

And it should generally identify the co-conspirators.<ref>

It is a valid defence to establish that the accused pretended to agree to the conspiracy.<ref>

The trier of fact must find "that the accused intended to enter into the agreement."<ref>

Conspiracy cannot be committed by way of an accused being reckless as to the object of the agreement.<ref>

{{supra1|Lamontagne}}{{atp|576}} "one notes that the crime of conspiracy cannot be committed by mere recklessness as to the object of the agreement")<br>

However, the accused can be liable where he is reckless as to the method of execution of the agreement.<ref>

{{CanLIIRP|Park|2524l|2009 ABQB 470 (CanLII)|465 AR 20}}{{perABQB|Ouellette J}} ("recklessness may only be applied with respect to the method of execution of the agreement")<br>

Willful blindness can satisfy the ''mens rea'' requirement of conspiracy.<ref>

{{supra2|2524l|Park}} ("The ''mens rea'' requirement for conspiracy may be satisfied where willful blindness is established")<br>

A party to an offence, including conspiracy "must have some knowledge of the essential nature of the offence to be committed, but not necessarily knowledge of all the details."<ref>

{{supra2|2524l|Park}}{{atps|569 to 571}}<br>

Evidence of "how" the agreement is to be carried out, specifically to over acts to be taken are elements to the agreement element of the offence.<ref>

{{CanLIIRP|Douglas|1fsnr|1991 CanLII 81 (SCC)|[1991] 1 SCR 301}}{{perSCC|Cory J}}{{atL|1fsnr|28}} ("How that agreement is to be  carried out, that is to say, the steps taken in furtherance of the agreement (the overt acts) are simply elements going to the proof of the essential ingredient of the offence, namely the agreement.")

===Common Design===

There must be a "a common plan with a common objective."<ref>  

{{CanLIIRP|Cotroni, (sub nom. Papalia)|1tx7p|1979 CanLII 38 (SCC)|[1979] 2 SCR 256}}{{perSCC|Dickson J}}

The Crown must establish that the accused had an intention to become a party to the common design with the knowledge of its implications.<ref>

{{CanLIIRP|Papalia|1tx7p|1979 CanLII 38 (SCC)|[1979] 2 SCR 256}}{{perSCC|Dickson J}} (“In addition to proof of common design, it was incumbent on the Crown to establish that each accused had the intention to become a party to that common design with knowledge of its implications.”)

It is not required that it be proven that every member of the conspiracy be involved in its execution or that they were involved throughout the entire time. It is enough if the evidence "demonstrates that the conspiracy proven included some of the accused; establishes that it occurred at some time within the time frame alleged in the indictment; and had as its object the type of crime alleged."<ref>

{{CanLIIRP|Douglas|1fsnr|1991 CanLII 81 (SCC)|[1991] 1 SCR 301}}{{perSCC|Cory J}}{{atL|1fsnr|41}}<br>

{{CanLIIRP|Papalia|1tx7p|1979 CanLII 38 (SCC)|[1979] 2 SCR 256}}{{perSCC|Dickson J}} ("The essence of criminal conspiracy is proof of agreement...")<br>

A member of a conspiracy who refuses to execute the plan is still guilty.<ref>

{{CanLIIRP|O'Brien|21v9k|1954 CanLII 42 (SCC)|[1954] SCR 666}}{{perSCC|Taschereau J}}{{atL|21v9k|4}}

Involvement in only part of a whole plan will still be found guilty.<ref>

{{CanLIIRP|Shirose|1fqp4|1999 CanLII 676 (SCC)|[1999] 1 SCR 565}}{{perSCC-H|Binnie J}}</ref>

An accused cannot be convicted for attempted conspiracy.<ref>

{{CanLIIRP|Dery|1q1hs|2006 SCC 53 (CanLII)|[2006] 2 SCR 669}}{{perSCC-H|Fish J}} </ref>

===Evidence===

Words of the co-conspirator are admissible against the accused. They are not hearsay and are rather the actus reus.<ref>  

{{CanLIIR-N|Cook|(1984), 39 CR (3d) 300}} aff'd in [http://canlii.ca/t/1ftv8 1986 CanLII 47] (SCC), [1986] 1 SCR 144{{perSCC|Dickson CJ}}</ref>

Further, the co-conspirators exception to hearsay makes statements admissible against the accused.<ref>

{{CanLIIRP|Perciballi|1fbs7|2001 CanLII 13394|154 CCC (3d) 481}}{{perONCA|Charron JA}} aff'd in [http://canlii.ca/t/51ss 2002 SCC 51] (CanLII){{perSCC-H|McLachlin CJ}}<br>

Statements by the co-conspirator that are not related to the conspiracy are not admissible against the accused.<ref>

===Aiding and Abetting===

{{seealso|Parties to an Offence}}

There has been a divided line of case law on whether a conviction can be made for being a party to a conspiracy.<ref>

{{CanLIIRP|Park|2524l|2009 ABQB 470 (CanLII)|465 AR 20}}{{perABQB|Ouellette J}}{{atps|540 to 575}}<br>

The members of a conspiracy do not need to all play an equal role in the endeavour, nor do they need to personally commit the offence they have agreed. Any degree of assistance can create membership.<Ref>

{{CanLIIRP|JF|fwb36|2013 SCC 12 (CanLII)|[2013] 1 SCR 565}}{{perSCC| J}}{{atL|fwb36|54}} (...it is not necessary that all members of a conspiracy play, or intend to play, equal roles in the ultimate commission of the unlawful object.  Indeed, members in a conspiracy need not personally commit, or intend to commit, the offence which each has agreed should be committed:... Any degree of assistance in the furtherance of the unlawful object can lead to a finding of membership as long as agreement to a common plan can be inferred and the requisite mental state has been established.")<br>

{{removed|(1) and (2)}}

1998, ch. 35, art. 121;

2018, ch. 11, art. 28;

2019, ch. 25, art. 183.

===Defences===

{{VictimHeader}} <!-- Sections / Notice of Agree / Notice of Restitution / Notice of VIS -->

|art. 465(1)(a) {{DescrSec|465(1)(a)}},<br>s. 465(1)(b)(i) {{DescrSec|465(1)(b)(i)}},<br>s. 465(1)(b)(ii) {{DescrSec|465(1)(b)(ii)}},<br>s. 465(1)(c) {{DescrSec|465(1)(c)}},<br>s. 465(1)(d) {{DescrSec|465(1)(d)}} || || ||

{{SProfileMax|art. 465(1)(a) {{DescrSec|465(1)(a)}} | {{NA}} | {{MaxLife}} }}

{{SProfileMax|s.  465(1)(b)(i) {{DescrSec| 465(1)(b)(i)}} | {{NA}} | {{Max10Years}} }}

{{SProfileMax|s.  465(1)(b)(ii) {{DescrSec| 465(1)(b)(ii)}} | {{NA}} | {{Max5Years}} }}

{{SProfileMax|s.  465(1)(d) {{DescrSec| 465(1)(d)}} | {{NA}} | {{MaxSummary}} }}

{{MaxPenaltyIndictment|art. 465(1)(a), (b), and (c)|'''{{MaxLife}}''' under s. 465(1)(a), ''''{{Max10Years}}''' under s. 465(1)(b)(i), and '''{{Max5Years}}''' under s. 465(1)(b)(ii)}} Where prosecuted under s. 465(1)(c) the maximum penalty will match that of the index offence.

{{MaxPenaltySummary|art. 465(1)(d)|'''{{summaryconviction}}'''}}

; Minimum Penalties

|art. 465(1)(a) {{DescrSec|465(1)(a)}} || {{NA}} || {{SProfileNoDischargeOrCSO}}

|art. 465(1)(d) {{DescrSec|465(1)(d)}}|| {{NA}} || {{SProfileAll}}

{{NoDischargeAvailable|art. 465(1)(a)}}

{{NoCSOAvailable|C|art. 465(1)(a)}}

{{seealso|Ancillary Orders}}

| [[Ordres ADN]] ||art. 465(1)(b)(i), (ii) ||

* {{SecondDNA(AorB)|art. 465(1)(b)(i),(ii)}}

| [[Delayed Parole Eligibility|Delayed Parole Order]] ||art. 465(1)(a) {{DescrSec|465(1)(a)}} ||

* {{ParoleDelayEligible|1|art. 465(1)(a) [conspiracy to commit murder]}}

; Ordonnances générales de détermination de peine{{GeneralSentencingOrders}}

; Ordonnances générales de confiscation{{GeneralForfeitureOrders}}

* [[Parties to an Offence#Counselling]]