gale-cup.poly.pm

#lang pollen

◊define-meta[doc-type]{factum}
◊define-meta[court]{SUPREME MOOT COURT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA}
◊define-meta[on-appeal-from]{The Supreme Court of Canada}
◊define-meta[appellant-name]{CATHIE GAUTHIER}
◊define-meta[respondent-name]{HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN}

◊declare-work[#:id "gauthier-scc" #:type "legal-case" #:title "R v Gauthier" #:short-form "*Gauthier* SCC" #:citation "2013 SCC 32"]
◊declare-work[#:id "gauthier-ca" #:type "legal-case" #:title "R v Gauthier" #:short-form "*Gauthier* CA" #:citation "2011 QCCA 1395"]

◊heading{Attribution}

Except for this section, ◊em{this} document is an attempted reproduction of
the factum at
<https://www.allard.ubc.ca/sites/www.allard.ubc.ca/files/uploads/moots/sample_appellants_factum_0.pdf>. I'm
using that content to test my custom authoring system. Where this
document varies from that sample, it is because I'm trying to conform
more closely to the 2018 rules
(<https://www.allard.ubc.ca/sites/www.allard.ubc.ca/files/uploads/moots/first-year-moot-court-rules-2018.pdf>).

◊heading{Statement of Facts}

The Appellant, Cathie Gauthier, was convicted after trial by jury of
three counts of first degree murder. Her appeal to the Québec Court of
Appeal was dismissed, as was her appeal to the Supreme Court of
Canada. The Appellant appeals from that decision to this Court.

◊note-cite["gauthier-scc"] ◊; "cite" in the factum setting needs to not trigger a footnote, but instead, leave placeholders for handling in the decode.
◊note-cite["gauthier-ca"]


On the evening of December 31, 2008, the Appellant's spouse, Marc
Laliberté, served poisoned drinks to himself, the Appellant, and the
couple's three children. The Appellant alone survived, and was
convicted of three counts of first degree murder.

◊note-cite["gauthier-scc" #:pinpoint "para 2"]
◊note-cite["gauthier-ca" #:pinpoint "paras. 5-6"]


**The prosecution theory** was that the Appellant had participated in
the offence by planning a murder-suicide pact with her spouse, by
purchasing prescription medication four days before her husband
ultimately put them in the drinks that killed the children, and by
omitting to intervene when her spouse served those drinks. The Crown
led evidence of a pact between the Appellant and her spouse through
documents: a joint will, her spouse's "life story", and several
letters.

[@gauthier-scc, paras. 18, 14]
[@gauthier-ca, para. 41]