R v Ryan
2013 SCC 3
R. v. Ryan
2013 SCC 3
Supreme Court of Canada — LeBel and Cromwell JJ. (majority), Fish J. (dissenting in part) | January 18, 2013
Background
Nicole Ryan was trapped in a violent, abusive marriage. Her husband repeatedly threatened to kill her and their daughter if she ever tried to leave him, and she believed he would carry out these threats. After seven months of planning, Ryan paid $25,000 to what she thought was a hitman to kill her husband. The "hitman" was actually an undercover RCMP officer. Ryan was charged with counselling the commission of an offence not committed under section 464(a) of the Criminal Code.
At trial, Ryan didn't dispute the facts — she had clearly tried to hire someone to kill her husband. Instead, she argued the defence of duress: that her husband's threats forced her into this desperate act. The trial judge accepted her evidence about the abuse and threats, found that duress applied, and acquitted her. The Crown appealed, arguing for the first time that duress wasn't legally available to Ryan on these facts.
Issues
- Can someone claim duress when the threats weren't made to force them to commit a crime, but were just general threats of violence?
- What's the difference between duress and self-defence, and when does each apply?
The Boundaries of Duress
The Supreme Court drew a crucial line: duress only applies when someone commits a crime because they're being threatened for the purpose of making them commit that specific crime. Ryan's situation was different — her husband was threatening her to control and terrorize her, not to force her to hire a hitman. She wanted him dead to escape the threats, not because the threats were designed to make her commit murder.
The Court explained that duress and self-defence serve different purposes. Self-defence is a justification — it says the act was right under the circumstances. Duress is an excuse — it says the act was wrong but we won't punish it because the person had no real choice. Since self-defence is considered more readily available than duress, it would be backwards to allow duress in a situation where self-defence wouldn't apply.
However, the Court also clarified the elements of duress going forward, harmonizing the statutory and common law versions: there must be threats of death or bodily harm; the accused must reasonably believe the threats will be carried out; there must be no safe avenue of escape; there must be close temporal connection between threat and harm; the response must be proportional; and the accused can't be part of a criminal conspiracy where threats were foreseeable.
Key Takeaway
Duress only works when you're being threatened specifically to make you commit the crime you're charged with.
While the Court allowed Ryan's appeal, they stayed the proceedings rather than order a new trial, recognizing the exceptional circumstances and the Crown's change of legal position between trial and appeal. This case significantly clarifies when duress can and cannot be used as a defence in Canadian criminal law.