Supreme+Court+of+Canada,+Frey+v.+Fedoruk+et+al

Close to midnight, Frey (appellant) parked near Fedoruk’s (respondent) house and looked into a back window. Fedoruk’s mother, who was in the room into which Frey peered, saw Frey and alerted Fedoruk. Fedoruk chased Frey with a knife and caught him, then proceeded to hold him inside the house until police arrived. A police officer (Stone) then arrested Frey without a warrant. Once a //prima facie// case is established demonstrating that imprisonment occurred, it is up to the defendant to prove that this imprisonment was justified. In this case, imprisonment (by Fedoruk then Stone) did take place; justification for the action on the part of Fedoruk is therefore necessary. · ** Frey did not commit an offence for which he could be arrested without warrant as per sections 30, 646 or 647 of the Criminal Code. The offence must therefore be justified at Common Law **. · However, Frey’s conduct could be regarded as criminal at Common Law. **Breach of the peace** at Common Law relates to disturbance of the tranquility of others, with a possibility of violent repercussion. · Frey did disturb the peace by produce fear and invite violence on the part of the house’s occupants. However, Fedoruk’s actions cannot by described as defensive as Frey was already in flight. Action that may provoke violence is not a sound basis for an offence defined by Criminal Law; this would provoke great uncertainty. · Frey’s conduct in this case was //contra bonos mores// (contrary to good morals), but not //contra pacem// (against the peace) under the criminal law. · ** The generic Common Law principle in this case, the “breach of the King’s Peace”, is too broad to have value as a definition. ** **It is therefore not a justification for Fedork’s actions against Frey.**
 * // Frey v. Fedoruk //**** [1950] S.C.R. 517 **
 * __ Facts: __**
 * __ Issues: __** Was Frey guilty of an offence under the Criminal Code and/or under the Common Law? Were the defendants (Fedoruk and Stone) justified in arresting Frey without a warrant for breach of peace?
 * __ Held: __** Appeal allowed. Frey’s conduct did not constitute a criminal offence, and Common-Law crime does not justify arrest without a warrant.
 * __ Reasoning: __**
 * __ Ratio: __**** In order to avoid great uncertainty, criminal law should adhere to the provisions of the Criminal Code or the authority of a previously reported case of Common Law.  **
 * A general Common Law principles that is too broad to have value as a definition does not alone justify the application of criminal sanction. **