Complicity: Conspiracy & Related Doctrines

Question 1

Interstate Circuit v US

Answer 1

Facts: Letter from distributer to theatres saying let’s raise prices, all theatres listed in the letterhead.
Holding: Evidence is persuasive that each distributer became aware that the others had joined, and renewed the agreement with that knowledge
Analysis:
• An unlawful conspiracy is often formed without simultaneous action or agreement

Question 2

People v Lauria

Answer 2

Facts: Lauria knew prostitutes were using his call service
Holding: Knowledge is not enough for misdemeanors. There must also be intention to participate
Analysis:
• Intent may be inferred from knowledge when
1. The purveyor of illegal goods for illegal use has a stake in the venture
2. No legitimate use for the goods and services existed
3. The volume of business with the buyer is grossly disproportionate to any legitimate demand, or when sales for an illegal use amount to a high proportion of the sellers total business

Question 3

Atlantic Sugar v Canada

Answer 3

Facts: Redpath proposed moving back to traditional mkt shares b/c undercutting and price wars were harming all sugar providers. Trial judge found tacit agreement not an agreement to unduly lessen competition (may have lessened some competition but not unduly)
Analysis:
• Conspiracy requires agreement; nothing illegal in the independent adoption of a policy of limited competition
o Conscious parallelism is not a crime

Question 4

R v Cotroni

Answer 4

Facts: 2 Ds extorting money in Toronto, 2 other Ds found out and started extorting the first two for the same money in Montreal
Holding: No evidence of agreement between 4 accused

Question 5

R v Lamontagne

Answer 5

Facts: Accused agrees to drive a trailer, says he didn’t know it was stolen, he was given very little info about the stolen trailer. Defence says willful blindness means no meeting of the minds.
Holding: Guilty of possession of stolen property, not guilty of conspiracy
Analysis:
• Conspiracy cannot be committed by mere recklessness to the object of the agreement
• To prove intent, not enough to know about a conspiracy, you must prove accused adopted it as his own and consented to participating in achieving it

Question 6

R v Logan

Answer 6

Facts: Clerk shot by accomplice during a robbery
Holding: “ought to know” MR for party to attempt murder is unconstitutional, contra PFJ
Analysis:
• Contra PFJ to be find parties guilty of the offence based on a lower standard of mens rea than required for convicting the principle

Question 7

R v Kirkness

Answer 7

Facts: Kirkness and Snowbird rob an old lady, Snowbird SAs old lady and Kirkenss buts a chair in front of the door. Snowbird strangles lady, Kirkness says stop, Snowbird suffocates lady.
Holding: NO evidence that the appellant knew or ought to have known that death was likely to result from the sexual assault. NO evidence he was party to the suffocation
Analysis:
• Cory Majority
o Death caused by suffocation, not SA, Kirkness not party to suffocation
o Independent action of a 3rd party
• Wilson dissent
o Death/serious bodily harm was a totally foreseeable outcome of S A & Kirkness is pty to SA

Question 8

R v Gauthier

Answer 8

Facts: Husband and wife create murder suicide pact, wife buys poison, writes will, changes her mind and tells husband. Husband still poisons, he and kids die.

Holding: defence of abandonment can be put to jury only if REASONABLE STEPS WERE TAKEN to neutralize effect of their participation or prevent commission