R. v. Lavallee, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 852

Case Title & Citation: 

R v Lavallee, [1990] 1 SCR 852 

[1990] 1 SCR 852 

Court Name & Bench: 

Supreme Court of Canada 

Judges: Dickson, Robert George Brian; Lamer, Antonio; Wilson, Bertha; L’Heureux-Dubé, Claire; Sopinka, John; Gonthier, Charles Doherty; McLachlin, Beverley 

Date of Judgment: 

3 May 1990 

Parties Involved: 

• Regina (Her Majesty The Queen): Respondent, prosecuting authority of the state. ● Angelique Lyn Lavallee: Appellant, a battered woman in a volatile common-law relationship. 

Nature of the Case: 

Criminal Law: In the context of criminal law, the case addresses self-defence in situations where an individual faces a murder charge after acting in what they perceived to be a life-threatening scenario. 

The case focussed on whether a battered woman who killed her abusive partner may claim self-defense and if expert psychiatric testimony on Battered Woman Syndrome could be used to explain her perception of danger.  

Key Legal Issue: 

Can expert testimony on Battered Woman Syndrome be used to assist a jury in determining whether the accused’s belief in an impending threat was reasonable under self-defence law? 

Evidence of Admissibility: A psychiatrist testified about the psychological repercussions of long-term abuse, explaining why Lavallee may have felt she was in risk of death or

significant damage. The Supreme Court found this evidence acceptable, proving that BWS can support a self-defense claim.  

Introduction: 

This case summary focuses on R v Lavallee [1], a landmark criminal case that examined the identification of Battered Woman Syndrome and its impact on the legal concept of self-defence in homicide situations. It is still an essential case in common law systems because of its enormous influence on how courts evaluate self-defense in the context of domestic violence. The ruling emphasizes the difficulty of analyzing self-defence claims, especially when the accused’s sense of impending threat is influenced by a history of abuse. 

Facts & Procedure: 

Angelique Lyn Lavallee, 22 years old, had been living with her partner, Kevin Rust, for three to four years. On the night of August 30-31, 1986, after hosting a party, Lavallee and Rust got into an altercation at their property. During this incident, Lavallee shot Rust once in the back 

of the head with a .303 calibre rifle. Rust had a history of physically abusing Lavallee over several years, resulting in multiple hospital visits, and she feared for her life. Immediately prior to the shooting, Rust threatened her, stating: “Either you kill me, or I’ll get you.” 

At trial in the Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench, Lavallee was charged with second-degree murder. She claimed self-defence, supported by expert psychiatric testimony on Battered Woman Syndrome, which described the psychological impact of long-term abuse and how it affected her sense of immediate threat. The trial jury acquitted Lavallee. 

The Crown appealed, and the Manitoba Court of Appeal overturned the acquittal, concluding that the trial judge erred in his directions on the admission and use of expert evidence. The Supreme Court of Canada upheld Lavallee’s acquittal, stating that expert testimony on Battered Woman Syndrome was necessary for evaluating her self-defense claim. [2] 

Context: 

As domestic abuse became more public in Canada in the late 20th century, courts had to reexamine old self-defence principles. Common law usually needed an imminent threat to legitimize the use of lethal force, which created challenges for abused women stuck in cycles

of violence. Can expert testimony on Battered Woman Syndrome (BWS) help juries determine the reasonableness of an accused’s sense of risk in self-defence cases? [3] 

Sub-Issues: 

1. Can a history of domestic abuse, along with a perceived immediate threat, justify using fatal force in self-defence? 
2. How do the common law standards for self-defence, particularly the element of imminence, apply when the accused fears death or grave bodily damage as a result of long-term domestic abuse? 
3. Can expert psychiatric testimony on BWS help the judge of fact determine the reasonableness of the accused’s sense of threat and the need of their response? 4. Can the accused’s use of fatal force be justified as legitimate self-defence under section 34 of the Criminal Code? 

Arguments: 

For the Defence (Lyn Lavallee): 

The defence claimed that Lavallee’s actions were justified by a reasonable fear of impending danger and constituted appropriate self-defence. After enduring many years of physical and psychological abuse and being confronted with her partner’s unambiguous threat to murder her on the night in issue, Lavallee rightfully concluded that fatal action was required to save her life. Expert testimony on Battered Woman Syndrome (BWS) was presented to explain how long-term abuse influenced her perception of risk and thought that she had no safe alternative. The doctor said that the repeated aggression made Lavallee feel confined and saw Rust’s threat as urgent and life-threatening. 

The defence emphasized that the psychological impact of abuse shaped Lavallee’s perception of danger, making her response both understandable and necessary. They highlighted that Criminal Code, s. 34(2) [4], allows for the use of reasonable force in self-defence when a person feels they are in imminent risk of death or serious bodily damage, without the need to wait for an actual attack. While courts have previously understood self-defence as requiring imminence, this threshold needed to be adjusted in the context of long-term domestic violence.

Madam Justice Wilson observed that the “imminence” requirement often conjures images of “an uplifted knife or a pointed gun.” [5] However, in Lavallee’s case, the threat could be reasonably anticipated based on clear evidence of past violence. A police officer and a doctor noted injuries consistent with a defensive struggle, and the coroner observed bruises on Rust’s left hand consistent with him having assaulted someone. This evidence supported the defence’s position that Lavallee’s fear of future violence was reasonable and grounded in fact.  [6] Ultimately, the defence successfully argued that Lavallee’s use of lethal force met the standard for self-defence, reflecting the unique challenges faced by individuals trapped in abusive relationships. 

For the Prosecution (The Crown): 

The Crown argued that the evidence did not support a claim of self-defence since the appellant was not in immediate danger when she shot Rust. They maintained that no attack was taking place at the time, and that the Criminal Code required a reasonable belief of imminent danger before using fatal force. The prosecution highlighted that Rust had turned away and was leaving the room, implying that there was no immediate threat to Lavallee’s safety. 

Furthermore, the Crown claimed that Lavallee’s actions were not necessary to protect herself, but rather a premeditated response. They maintained that the legal requirement for self-defence, a reasonable concern of death or serious bodily damage [7], was not applicable in this situation. The prosecution requested the jury to analyze the circumstances surrounding the shooting, particularly the absence of an immediate threat, in determining whether Lavallee’s use of fatal force was authorized under the Criminal Code. 

Court’s Analysis: 

In the landmark case R v Lavallee, the Supreme Court of Canada, in a decision led by Justice Bertha Wilson, examined the complications of self-defense in the context of domestic abuse. Justice Wilson noted: 

“Obviously, the fact that the Appellant was a battered woman does not entitle her to an acquittal. Battered women may well kill their partners other than in self-defence.” [8]

The Court recognized that traditional self-defence laws, which require an imminent threat, do not fully reflect the realities faced by victims of prolonged abuse. It noted that “the psychological effect of battering can lead to a reasonable apprehension of danger” even in the absence of an immediate assault. 

The Court acknowledged that traditional self-defence statutes, which require an urgent threat, do not adequately represent the circumstances encountered by victims of long-term abuse. It noted that “the psychological effect of battering can lead to a reasonable apprehension of danger” even in the absence of a direct attack. 

Ultimately, the Court determined that the standard for an imminent threat must be considered in light of battered women’s specific circumstances, providing for a broader interpretation of what constitutes a reasonable perception of risk. 

Final Decision: 

The Supreme Court of Canada acquitted Angelique Lyn Lavallee of second-degree murder, upholding the original jury’s decision. The Crown’s appeal was overruled. The Court highlighted that the jury should have been given the opportunity to hear expert testimony about Lavallee’s psychological condition and the context of her acts, emphasizing that such information was critical to comprehending her impression of immediate threat. 

The Court emphasized that expert testimony on Battered Woman Syndrome (BWS) is allowed to help the jury evaluate self-defence claims in circumstances involving long-term domestic violence. This ruling represented a fundamental shift in the legal framework around self-defence, ensuring that victims’ experiences of domestic abuse be adequately acknowledged in court procedures. 

The verdict reaffirmed the notion that the law must consider the facts of abuse as well as the particular issues that abused women experience when determining the legality of their protective measures. [9] 

Legal Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi: 

The Supreme Court of Canada established in R v Lavallee that expert evidence on Battered Woman Syndrome (BWS) is admissible to support a claim of self-defence. Justice Bertha

Wilson ruled that an abused woman’s psychological reality must be considered when determining whether she reasonably believed a threat to her life. As Wilson J. noted, 

“It is difficult for the lay person to comprehend Battered Woman Syndrome.” [10] 

The Court highlighted that traditional self-defence requirements, notably the necessity of imminence, must be applied in the context of long-term domestic violence, allowing the jury to evaluate the accused’s sense of danger based on her actual experience. 

In reaching this conclusion, the Court drew upon R v Abbey [11], which addressed the admissibility of expert evidence in cases involving mental health. Abbey confirmed that expert opinion may be admissible even if partly based on hearsay, provided it rests on a credible and reliable foundation. This precedent reinforced the importance of psychological evidence in helping juries understand an accused’s state of mind. 

By integrating these principles, R v Lavallee established a more nuanced approach to self-defence, ensuring that victims of domestic violence are judged in the context of their actual experiences and perception of threat, rather than by an objective standard alone. [12] 

Conclusion / Observation: 

The Supreme Court’s ruling in R v Lavallee represents a turning point in how the law understands self-defence in the context of intimate partner violence. The Court recognized that “the psychological effect of battering can lead to a reasonable apprehension of danger,” even in the absence of an immediate threat. This decision permits expert testimony on Battered Woman Syndrome (BWS), emphasizing the importance of considering the unique circumstances of victims. By moving away from a rigid requirement of an “imminent” threat, the Court acknowledged that years of abuse can make danger feel constant and inescapable, even when it may not appear immediate to an outsider. 

The Court exemplfied that its intention was not to provide a unconditional justification for retaliatory violence, but to reinforce a fundamental principle: that “no man has the right to abuse any woman in any circumstances.” This approach strikes a careful balance between protecting life and refusing to tolerate domestic violence in any form.

Critics have raised concerns about framing BWS as a psychological disorder, noting that it may inadvertently portray women’s responses as abnormal or irrational, potentially limiting self-defence claims to a narrow “stereotype” of a battered woman. This is a crucial point, as the law should protect all victims of abuse, not just those who fit a particular profile. 

The inclusion of expert testimony in Lavallee demonstrates the Court’s willingness to adapt its understanding of human behaviour rather than rely solely on rigid legal traditions. The case is not just about one woman’s acquittal, but about the justice system evolving to respond more fairly to individuals marginalized by violence. It shows that the law can evolve with compassion while upholding its integrity, establishing a legal framework that acknowledges the complexities of intimate partner violence while maintaining necessary legal boundaries. 

Bibliography: 

Cases 

• R v Lavallee (1990) 1 SCR 852
• R v Abbey [1982] 2 S.C.R. 24

Legislation 

• Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 34

Secondary Sources 

• MacDonnell V, ‘The New Self-Defence Law: Progressive Development or Status Quo?’ (2014) 
• Morris C and Pilon M, The Battered Wife Defence: The Lavallee Case (Parliamentary Research Branch, Law and Government Division (1990) 

[1] R v Lavallee (1990) 1 SCR 852 (SCC) 

[2] Vanessa A MacDonnell, ‘The New Self-Defence Law: Progressive Development or Status Quo?’ (2014) 92(2) Can Bar Rev 301, 313. 

[3] Christopher Morris and Marilyn Pilon, The Battered Wife Defence: The Lavallee Case (Parliamentary Research Branch, Law and Government Division (1990) 

[4] Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 34

[5] Christopher Morris and Marilyn Pilon, The Battered Wife Defence: The Lavallee Case (Parliamentary Research Branch, Law and Government Division, 1990) 

[6] Christopher Morris and Marilyn Pilon, The Battered Wife Defence: The Lavallee Case (Parliamentary Research Branch, Law and Government Division (1990) 

[7] Christopher Morris and Marilyn Pilon, The Battered Wife Defence: The Lavallee Case (Parliamentary Research Branch, Law and Government Division (1990) 

[8] R v Lavallee (1990) 1 SCR 852 (SCC) 

[9] Christopher Morris and Marilyn Pilon, The Battered Wife Defence: The Lavallee Case (Parliamentary Research Branch, Law and Government Division (1990) 

[10] R v Lavallee (1990) 1 SCR 852 (SCC)  

[11] R v Abbey [1982] 2 S.C.R. 24 

[12] R v Lavallee (1990) 1 SCR 852 (SCC)