R. v. Lavallee, (1990) 1 S.C.R. 852 S.C.

C (Angelique Lyn Lavallee)

R. v. Lavallee, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 852 is a landmark case in Canadian criminal law that

addresses the issue of battered women's syndrome as a defence to homicide. The case

involved a woman named Lavallee who was charged with murdering her partner in self-

defence. Lavallee claimed that she had been subjected to long-term physical and emotional

abuse by her partner, which led her to fear for her life and eventually kill him in a moment of

desperation. The defence argued that Lavallee had acted in self-defence and that the killing

was justified. However, the prosecution argued that Lavallee had acted with premeditation

and that her actions constituted murder. This essay will argue that Ms Lavallee is guilty of

manslaughter as a result of her self-defence defence (does it apply in this case?) and whether

the evidence provided by Dr Shane, the Battered Women Syndrome expert, can be used in

situations where self-defence is called into question, particularly in the case of Lavallee, if

this type of evidence is admissible in court.

The plea of self-defence is used when the accused admits to using force against

another person but claims that he or she was acting in self-defence. Three provisions of the

Criminal Code make the defence unnecessarily complicated. The Code categorizes self-

defence into four categories: 1) when an accused is the innocent victim of an unprovoked

assault and responds with force but does not intend to kill or cause grievous bodily harm to

the assailant (section 34(1)); 2) when an accused responds to an unprovoked assault and

intends to kill the assailant (section 34(2)); and 3) when the accused provoked the initial

assault (section 35); and 4) where the accused is protecting herself or someone else from

assault (section 37).1 A person who responds to an unprovoked assault but does not intend to

kill or inflict serious bodily harm, on the other hand, must only prove that she used no more
1 Department of Justice Government of Canada, “Bill C-26 (S.C. 2012 c. 9) Reforms to Self-Defence
and Defence of Property: Technical Guide for Practitioners,” Self-Defence - Detailed Examination of
New Section 34 of the Criminal Code - Bill C-26 (S.C. 2012 c. 9) Reforms to Self-Defence and
Defence of Property: Technical Guide for Practitioners, February 3, 2023,
https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/other-autre/rsddp-rlddp/p5.html.
force than was necessary to defend herself. If an accused successfully persuades the jury that

he or she acted in self-defence, the law considers the accused's actions to be justified, and the

accused is acquitted. Regardless of the form of self-defence invoked, the accused must

demonstrate that specific aspects of his or her conduct were objectively reasonable. In this

case, the accused claimed that she acted in self-defence and therefore, did not intend to kill

her partner. However, the trial judge rejected this defence and found the accused guilty of

murder. The Supreme Court of Canada, however, recognized that the accused's history of

abuse at the hands of her partner had to be considered in assessing whether she acted in self-

defence. The court held that the accused could not be convicted of murder if she honestly

believed that she was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm and if her belief

was objectively reasonable in the circumstances.2 This is where it gets complicated for the

judge to decide if the accused is being truthful in her police report and testimony through Dr.

Shane. I believe that she did use excessive force when she shot her husband because he was

already walking away from her through the door. She would have had the opportunity to

shoot somewhere else at him where it would not be critical, and she would have been able to

escape. The court further held that if the accused could not be convicted of murder, she could

still be convicted of manslaughter if she caused the death of her partner through an unlawful

act, namely the use of excessive force in self-defence.3 Excessive force in self-defence could

be considered an illegal act, negating the defence of self-defence and leading to a

manslaughter conviction. She has previously threatened to kill her husband while pointing a

gun at him. The court noted that the accused had not exhausted all reasonable alternatives

before resorting to deadly force. For example, the accused could have sought help from the

police, from a shelter for battered women, or from friends or family members. The court held

that the accused's failure to seek help from these alternatives could be seen as evidence that

2 Supreme Court Canada, “R. v. Lavallee,” R. V. Lavallee - SCC cases (Supreme Court Canada,
1990), https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/599/index.do.
3 Ibid
she intended to use excessive force in self-defence. The case of R. v. Lavallee demonstrates

the complex issues surrounding the use of self-defence in cases of domestic violence. While

the accused may have had a genuine fear for her safety, the use of excessive force in self-

defence cannot be justified under Canadian law. Therefore, the accused in this case could be

guilty of manslaughter if she used excessive force to defend herself from her abusive partner.

The issue in this case was whether or not evidence provided by an expert could be

used in circumstances where self-defence was in doubt, particularly in the context of

Lavallee, and whether or not this type of evidence was admissible in court. The first reason

Dr. Shane's testimony was inadmissible was that it did not meet the legal requirements for

expert testimony. Expert testimony is admissible in court when the expert's opinion is

required to assist the trier of fact in understanding complex or technical issues. However, in

order for expert testimony to be admissible, it must meet the legal requirements outlined in

case law, namely the Mohan test.4 The Mohan test requires expert testimony to meet four

requirements: relevance, necessity, the absence of an exclusionary rule, and proper expert

qualification. The court held in R. v. Lavallee that Dr Shane's testimony did not meet the

relevance requirement because it did not aid the trier of fact in understanding the evidence in

the case. It is noted that Dr. Shane's testimony did not satisfy the necessity requirement

because the accused's behaviour was not complex enough to warrant expert testimony. The

evidence in the case, including the accused's testimony and the testimony of other witnesses,

provided enough information for the jury to understand the accused's behaviour, according to

the court. Furthermore, the court ruled that Dr Shane's testimony was inadmissible because it

failed to meet the requirement of proper expert qualification. According to the court, Dr

Shane's testimony was based on a general theory of battered woman syndrome that had not

been scientifically validated or widely accepted by the scientific community. The lack of

4 Court of Appeal, “R. v. Mohan,” R. V. Mohan - SCC cases (Supreme Court Judgments, 1994),
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1131/index.do.
scientific validation rendered Dr Shane's testimony untrustworthy and inadmissible,

according to the court. The second reason Dr Shane's testimony was inadmissible was that it

violated the hearsay rule. The rule against hearsay is a fundamental rule of evidence that

forbids the admission of out-of-court statements offered to prove the truth of the assertion

made in the statement.5 In the case of R. v. Lavallee, Dr Shane formed his opinion about the

accused's behaviour based on statements she made about her abusive relationship. These

statements were hearsay because they were presented to prove the truth of the assertion,

namely that the accused was a victim of abuse. Dr Shane also mentioned facts that had never

previously been submitted to the court in the police reports and statements. Hearsay

statements are generally unreliable because they are not subject to cross-examination and

their truthfulness cannot be assessed in court. The third reason Dr Shane's testimony was

inadmissible was that it usurped the jury's role. The jury's role is to determine witness

credibility and the weight to be given to their evidence. The jury is also in charge of applying

the law to the facts of the case and arriving at a decision. Dr Shane's testimony in R. v.

Lavallee went beyond providing expert opinion and was equal to advocacy on behalf of the

accused. This would not have happened if the accused had testified in court because most of

the evidence that the doctor had for his testimony was four hours of sections with the

accused. The expert's testimony should not have been admissible in court because it had the

potential to bias the jury in favour of the accused and was not accurate about how the events

of that night happened.

Bibliography

5 “Hearsay,” Hearsay - Criminal Law Notebook, 2021,

https://criminalnotebook.ca/index.php/Hearsay#:~:text=The%20hearsay%20rule%20has
%20stated,proof%20of%20assertions%20implicit%20therein.
Appeal, Court of. “R. v. Mohan.” R. V. Mohan - SCC cases. Supreme Court

Judgments, 1994.

https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1131/index.do.

Canada, Supreme Court. “R. v. Lavallee.” R. V. Lavallee - SCC cases. Supreme Court

Canada, 1990. https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/599/index.do.

Government of Canada, Department of Justice. “Bill C-26 (S.C. 2012 c. 9) Reforms to

Self-Defence and Defence of Property: Technical Guide for Practitioners.” Self-

Defence - Detailed Examination of New Section 34 of the Criminal Code - Bill

C-26 (S.C. 2012 c. 9) Reforms to Self-Defence and Defence of Property:

Technical Guide for Practitioners, February 3, 2023.

https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/other-autre/rsddp-rlddp/p5.html.

“Hearsay.” Hearsay - Criminal Law Notebook, 2021.

https://criminalnotebook.ca/index.php/Hearsay#:~:text=The%20hearsay%20rule

%20has%20stated,proof%20of%20assertions%20implicit%20therein.

Homicide handout, Clanon 2023