R v Lavallee
| R v Lavallee | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Hearing: October 31, 1989 Judgment: May 3, 1990 | |
| Full case name | Angelique Lyn Lavallee v Her Majesty The Queen |
| Citations | [1990] 1 S.C.R. 852 |
| Docket No. | 21022[1] |
| Prior history | on appeal from Court of Appeal for Manitoba |
| Ruling | Lavallee appeal Allowed |
| Court membership | |
| Chief Justice: Brian Dickson Puisne Justices: Antonio Lamer, Bertha Wilson, Gérard La Forest, Claire L'Heureux-Dubé, John Sopinka, Charles Gonthier, Peter Cory, Beverley McLachlin | |
| Reasons given | |
| Majority | Wilson J., joined by Dickson C.J. and Lamer, L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier and McLachlin JJ. |
| Concurrence | Sopinka J. |
| La Forest and Cory JJ. took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
R v Lavallee, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 852 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada case on the legal recognition of battered woman syndrome. The judgement, written by Bertha Wilson, is generally considered one of her most famous.
Background
Angelique Lavallee was in an abusive common law relationship with Kevin Rusterson. During a particularly serious fight Rust threatened to harm her, saying "either you kill me or I'll get you". During the altercation Rust slapped her, pushed her and hit her twice on the head. At some point during the altercation he handed Lavallee a gun, which she first fired through a screen. Lavallee first contemplated shooting herself, however when Rust turned around to leave the room she shot him in the back of the head. At trial, Lavallee argued self-defence, and had a psychiatrist testify in her support. He explained the effects of her circumstances on her mental state and that in the state she was in she felt she was going to be killed and had no alternative but to shoot him. Lavallee did not testify. The jury acquitted Lavallee, but the verdict was overturned on appeal.
At issue before the Supreme Court was whether the expert evidence on battered wife syndrome was admissible.
Reasons of the court
Justice Wilson, writing for the Court, held that expert evidence is often needed when stereotypes and myths are inherent in a lay-person's reasoning. In particular here, the women's experience and perspective is relevant to inform the reasonable person's standard required for self-defence.
See also
- R v Malott, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 123
External links
- Full text of Supreme Court of Canada decision at LexUM and CanLII
- UofT Law Journal article on Lavallee
.svg){kind=small}  | This article about Canadian law is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
- ^ SCC Case Information - Docket 21022 Supreme Court of Canada