Top Court tales
by Philip Slayton
A new kind of
case commentary
R.
v. Ryan is an important
case for an unusual
reason. It introduced a
new kind of case commentary, one made
possible by social media. If this novel
form of commentary catches on, it will
16
M ay
2013
www.CANADIAN
change the way the public sees and
evaluates the justice system.
You remember R. v. Ryan. The facts
were sensational. Nicole Ryan was looking for someone to kill her abusive husband, Michael Ryan. She talked to an
undercover RCMP officer posing as a
L a w ye r m a g . c o m
hit man. She agreed to pay him $25,000
to murder Michael. The discussion was
secretly videotaped. Nicole was arrested
and charged with counseling the commission of an offence not committed, contrary to s. 464(a) of the Criminal Code.
Michael Ryan didn't testify at his wife's
trial. The Crown thought it unnecessary;
the case against Nicole seemed like a
slam-dunk. But the judge found Nicole
had an intense and reasonable fear arising from her husband's threats of death
and serious bodily harm to herself and
their daughter. He said the common law
defence of duress applied. Nicole was
acquitted.
The Crown appealed. The Nova
Scotia Court of Appeal agreed with the
trial judge, but the Supreme Court of
Canada didn't. Justices Louis LeBel and
Thomas Cromwell for an eight-judge
majority (Justice Morris Fish dissented
in part) said: "As we see it, the defence
of duress is available when a person
commits an offence while under compulsion of a threat made for the purpose
of compelling him or her to commit it.
That was not Ms. Ryan's situation." But,
nonetheless, the court ordered a stay of
proceedings (that was where Fish dissented), saying "the abuse which she
suffered at the hands of Mr. Ryan took an
enormous toll on her, as, no doubt, have
these protracted proceedings, extending
over nearly five years, in which she was
acquitted at trial and successfully resisted
a Crown appeal in the Court of Appeal."
When the decision was released in
January, the usual suspects weighed in
with their opinions. The Toronto Star
Dushan Milic
An online video from someone intimately and emotionally involved in a
case — but not heard from in court — has garnered lots of attention.
