The Credibiity of Confidential Informants in Reviewing a Informaiton to Obtain a Warrant to Search a home
The credibility of a confidential informant is very important to the state’s case when endeavoring to uphold a warrant authorizing a search that is critical to the entire prosecution case. An accused person’s conviction was overturned recently by the Court of Appeal in Regina v. Herta, 2018 ONCA 927where the entire case for the Prosecution Service hinged on the credibility of a confidential informant. The Court permitted Mr. Herta’s appeal of his unsuccessful motion under Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms at trial, excluded the drug evidence, and entered acquittals on all counts. The critical issue was the Information to Obtain the search warrant of a home. The critical issue was the Information to Obtain the search warrant of a home under the seminal authority of Reginav. Feeney, [1997] 2 S.C.R. 13;
The standard exacted, to review the warrant and ITO, is one of credibly-based probability, and requires proof of reasonable probability or reasonable belief. This standard requires more than an experienced-based “hunch” or reasonable suspicion, but it does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, or even the establishment of a prima facie case. In short, if the inferences of criminal conduct and the recovery of evidence are reasonable on the facts disclosed in the ITO, then the search warrant could have been issued.
In this case, the search of his home arose from the fact that an individual wanted by police (DC) was seen arriving there. The Information to Obtain (the “ITO”) the search warrant contained references from a confidential informant that this individual “DC” was armed. Consequently, the police obtained a search warrant for the house, which did not reveal a gun, but led police to find several illicit CDSA substances that formed the basis of the charges before the Provincial Court.
The Court of Appeal made it very clear that the indexed search warrant, in this case, rose or fell on the strength of the confidential informant’s tip; and consequently the Crown’s case. However, the trial judge was not tasked with a step six analysis from Regina v. Garofoli, 1990 CanLII 52 (S.C.C.). When reviewing a judicial authorization, the relevant question is not whether the reviewing Court would have granted the order. The question on review is whether or not the order could have issued. The test in this regard was set out by Sopinka J. in Garofoli, supra, as follows:
The reviewing judge does not substitute his or her view for that of the authorizing judge. If, based on the record which was before the authorizing judge as amplified on the review, the reviewing judge concludes that the authorizing judge could have granted the authorization, then he or she should not interfere. In this process, the existence of fraud, non-disclosure, misleading evidence and new evidence are all relevant, but, rather than being a prerequisite to review, their sole impact is to determine whether there continues to be any basis for the decision of the authorizing judge.
In reviewing the sufficiency of a warrant application, however, “the test is whether there was reliable evidence that might reasonably be believed on the basis of which the authorization could have issued” (R. v. Araujo, 2000 SCC 65, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 992 (S.C.C.), at para. 54 (emphasis in original)). The question is not whether the reviewing court would itself have issued the warrant, but whether there was sufficient credible and reliable evidence to permit a justice of the peace to find reasonable and probable grounds to believe that an offence had been committed and that evidence of that offence would be found at the specified time and place.
This is notwithstanding the fact there were heavy redactions in the ITO. However, since the redacted ITO did not contain objective facts supporting the informant’s credibility, no confidence could be safely placed in his/her information. What is more, insufficient corroborative evidence was present to justify the belief that DC was in the residence with a gun. The confirmatory information available related to things that many people would know about this person: DC.
Finally, the confidential informant’s tip was not sufficiently compelling. This is because it did not connect DC’s possession of a gun to the residence in question; and there was nothing in in the ITO that connected DC to the residence. The ITO was also potentially misleading by suggesting that DC lived at the house.
Based on the totality of the circumstances, the Court could not support the warrant and that the accused’s s.8 Charterrights were breached.
As such, the Court engaged in a s. 24(2) Charter analysis as required by Regina v. Grant2009 SCC 32 (SCC). It ruled that the impact of the breach on the Charter-protected interests of the accused weighed heavily in favour of exclusion, given the highly invasive nature of the search. Despite the importance of society’s interest in the adjudication of this case on the merits, the exclusion of evidence was warranted. Acquittals were entered on this basis.
If you have been charged with a drug related offence involving the use of Search Warrant by the police, call Mr. J.S. Patel, Barrister for a consultation: 403-585-1960.
The use of a driver’s statement in a jury trial for impaired driving charges.
The application of the rules regarding the assessment of an accused person’s statement as raised in R. v. W.(D.),1991 CanLII 93 (SCC)was considered in Regina v. Bacci, 2018 ONCA 928, where the Court of Appeal in Ontario quashed the accused’s conviction for impaired operation causing bodily harm, two counts of driving over 80 causing bodily harm contrary to s.255(2.1) of the Criminal Code, and two counts of dangerous driving causing bodily harm contrary to s.249(3) of the Criminal Code. This was due to an error errors in the trial judge’s W.(D.) instruction in his recharge to the jury.
The facts of the case were simply as follows. The accused and her four passengers were returning to the accused’s family cottage when their car flipped over after the accused failed to negotiate a curve. All four passengers testified at trial. The accused told the police “I don’t know what happened. The car just lost control.” The Crown expert witness admitted that there was a probability, albeit low, that the accident could have been caused by a mechanical failure.
Central to the success of the appeal hinged on the W.(D.) instruction relating to the accused’s statement. Again, the purpose of this instruction was famously described by the Supreme Court of Canada in the following clear terms:
First, if you believe the evidence of the accused, obviously you must acquit.
Second, if you do not believe the testimony of the accused but you are left in reasonable doubt by it, you must acquit.
Third, even if you are not left in doubt by the evidence of the accused, you must ask yourself whether, on the basis of the evidence which you do accept, you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt by that evidence of the guilt of the accused.
The original charge to the jury was:
I want to mention one particular piece of evidence you heard because it is deserving of special treatment according to the law.
[1] You heard from Alexandra Jones that she heard Megan Bacci state at the accident scene, “I do not know what happened. My car just lost control.” If you believe that this what was reported by Alexandra Jones was in fact said by Megan Bacci and if you accept Megan Bacci’s explanation that her vehicle just lost control and you find this lose [sic] of control was caused entirely by mechanical failure, you must find Megan Bacci not guilty of impaired operation causing bodily harm, operation of a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of over 80 causing bodily harm and dangerous driving causing bodily harm. You might still find her guilty of the lesser included offences in counts 1 through 4. Even if you do not accept that Megan Bacci said what was reported by Alexandra Jones or accept Megan Bacci’s explanation for what happened or accept the lose [sic] of control was caused entirely by mechanical failure, if it leaves you with a reasonable doubt about whether Megan Bacci caused the accident and the accompanying bodily harm, you must find her not guilty of those offences because the Crown would have failed to prove an essential element, that is causation of those offences beyond a reasonable doubt. You may still, however, find her guilty of the lesser and included offences in counts 1 through 4.
[2] Even if the evidence does not 1eave you with a reasonable doubt about whether Megan Bacci caused the accident, you may convict Megan Bacci only if the rest of the evidence that you do accept proves her guilt on that essential element of causation beyond a reasonable doubt.
The recharge to the jury was:
The one last area I want to mention the one particular piece of evidence you heard because it deserves special treatment and that’s what Megan Bacci said that what Alexandra Jones stated that she heard that is, “I do not know what happened, my car just lost control.”
I want to repeat this to you. If you believe that what was reported by Alexandra Jones was in fact said by Megan Bacci, and if you accept Megan Bacci’s explanation given to Alexandra Jones that her vehicle just lost control, and you find that this lost [sic] of control that is referred to was not caused by her in any way then you must find Megan Bacci not guilty of impaired operation causing bodily harm, operation of a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over 80 thereby causing bodily harm and dangerous driving causing bodily harm. You might still find her guilty of the lesser and included offences of 1through 4.
So “I do not know what happened, my car just lost control”, that is from Alexandra Jones about what Megan Bacci said. So one, you have to consider whether you believe that what Alexandra Jones said was in fact said by Megan Bacci. You have to accept that that’s Megan Bacci’s explanation that the vehicle just lost control, you have to accept that explanation by her and you have to find that this loss of control that’s alluded to, that’s referred was not caused by her any way, the lost [sic] of control of the vehicle was not caused by her in any way.
If you find those three things then you must find her not guilty on counts 1through 6. You still may find her guilty of the lesser and included counts, charges in counts 1 through 4.
I hope that’s cleared it up. If not, I’m sure you will have a question but you’re free to go now.
The Court of Appeal held that the original charge to the jury did not contain any errors concerning the interpretation of the above noted statement. As such it did not cause the jury to give extra scrutiny to the defence evidence and it inured to the benefit of the accused. What is more, the trial judge did not err in his original charge when he instructed the jury that the accused must be acquitted if they found that the loss of control was “entirelycaused by mechanical failure,” as it was evident that this was not the only basis for acquittal (emphasis added). This is because the second and third arms/prongs of the W.(D.) instruction made it clear that an acquittal was possible via other paths. Thus, when the entirely instruction is reviewed in as a whole, the jury charge adequately conveyed to the jury that they were not engaged in a credibility contest.
In the recharge, the trial judge similarly did not err by providing an exculpatory interpretation to the statement. However, the trial judge failed to contextualize the recharge and identify that he was correcting a previous error. In addition, the trial judge also said nothing about the second and third branch of W.(D.)in the recharge. That served to only served to confuse the jury. Due to the foregoing, this constituted a non-direction amounting to misdirection with respect to a crucial aspect of the defence. The Court stated: “In these circumstances the jury is entitled to instructions which were clear, correct and comprehensive,as S.(W.D.) mandates. Unfortunately, the last word that the jury heard was an incorrect and incomplete instruction on critical issues.”
The defence appeal was allowed, the conviction was overturned, and a new trial was ordered.
If you have been charged with impaired driving causing bodily harm and/or a similar criminal driving related offence, contact Mr. J. S. Patel, Barrister for an initial consultation at 403-585-1960.
Supreme Court of Canada rules that Historical Maintenance Records for a Breathalyzer are not first party disclosure.
In an important disclosure decision from the Supreme Court of Canada (the “SCC”) provides guidance on legal standard imposed on Crown Prosecutors and policing services to disclosed historical maintenance records that pertain to the breathalyzer device used in the context of impaired driving investigations under section 253(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada (the “Code”) or their predicate sections. Critical to the SCC’s determination was the “likely relevancy” of the records sought by the defence. Despite a well-argued case by reputable and senior defence counsel from Calgary, Alberta, the SCC ruled, in Regina v. Gubbins, 2018, SCC 44 (and the companion cases), in an eight (8) to one (1) majority, as follows, in relevant part:
First, the historical maintenance records sought by Mr. Gubbins, through counsel, that related to the breathalyzer device used in the investigation of a charge of driving “over 80” was not “first-party disclosure”. Under the cases of Regina v. Stinchcombe, 1991 CanLII 45 (SCC), [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326 at pp. 336-40; Regina v. Quesnelle, 2014 SCC 46 (CanLII), [2014] 2 S.C.R. 390, at para. 11.and their pedigree, the Crown has a broad duty to disclose all relevant, non-privileged information in its possession or control to persons charged with criminal offences. Disclosure of this information allows the person charged to understand the case she or he has to meet and permits him or her to make full answer and defence to the charges. However, in this case, the SCC found that they were third party records, and the defence must demonstrate their “likely relevance” at an application for production. However, “time-of-test” records, which show how the device was operating when the accused’s sample was taken, are “obviously relevant” and therefore are first party disclosure.
On this concept, the “likely relevance” standard is significant, but not onerous. It allows courts to prevent speculative, fanciful, disruptive, unmeritorious, obstructive, and time consuming requests for production. What is more, the he duty of the police to disclose first-party material is limited to the “fruits of the investigation” and information “obviously relevant to the accused’s case” (at para. 21). Neither includes “operational records or background information.” In citing Reginav. Jacksonfrom the Ontario Court of appeal, the Court posited:
[22]The “fruits of the investigation” refers to the police’s investigative files, as opposed to operational records or background information. This information is generated or acquired during or as a result of the specific investigation into the charges against the accused. Such information is necessarily captured by first party/Stinchcombe disclosure, as it likely includes relevant, non-privileged information related to the matters the Crown intends to adduce in evidence against an accused, as well as any information in respect of which there is a reasonable possibility that it may assist an accused in the exercise of the right to make full answer and defence. The information may relate to the unfolding of the narrative of material events, to the credibility of witnesses or the reliability of evidence that may form part of the case to meet.
In its normal, natural everyday sense, the phrase “fruits of the investigation” posits a relationship between the subject matter sought and the investigation that leads to the charges against an accused.
This case is important and contributes to the existing case-law because the SCC’s previous decision in Reginav. St‑Onge Lamoureux, [2012] 3 SCR 187, 2012 SCC 57 (CanLII), did not decide that maintenance records are “obviously relevant,”and expert evidence establishes that the issue of whether a device was properly maintained is immaterial to its functioning at the time the sample was taken.
What is more, the Court held that the constitutionality of the statutory presumption of accuracyof breathalyzer devices is not jeopardized by the holding that historical maintenance records are third party records. The defence can use time-of-test records and testimony from the technician or officer involved to challenge the presumption. A defence is not illusory simply because it will rarely succeed. At paragraph 47, the Court stated:
The statutory presumption of accuracy refers to the specific results generated by the instrument at that time. The only question that must be answered is whether the machines were operating properly at the time of the test ― not before or after. The time-of-test records directly deal with this. The maintenance records, according to the expert evidence, do not.
Conversely, Justice Côté . dissented. In his decision, he held, that would have held that maintenance records are “obviously relevant” to rebutting the statutory presumption of accuracy, and are therefore first party disclosure. Justice Côté also would have held that the constitutionality of the statutory presumption of accuracy depends on the ability of the defence to access maintenance records. The rationale of this decision was summarized in the following terms:
Holding that only time‑of‑test records produced by the instrument can demonstrate malfunctioning effectively assumes that the machine is infallible. This confines the defence to arguments raising a doubt as to the instrument’s operation, contrary to Parliament’s intent to make malfunctioning and improper operation two distinct grounds for rebutting the presumption of accuracy. Recourse to third party disclosure will, in practice, be illusory. For an accused to have a real opportunity to show that an instrument was malfunctioning, an expert must have an evidentiary basis either to opine as to the possibility that the instrument malfunctioned or to establish the likely relevance of other information to be sought through third party disclosure. Providing nothing by way of first party disclosure forces accused persons and their experts to resort to conjecture and speculation.
And he concluded at paragraph 86:
[86] Finally, it is my view that disclosing maintenance records as first party records is not only consistent with St-Onge Lamoureux but also serves the interests of justice. Where maintenance records reveal no issues, their disclosure may compel the accused to plead guilty. Where they reveal certain issues and an expert is of the opinion that these issues may prove that the instrument malfunctioned, the maintenance records provide a basis for the accused to raise such a defence or to make subsequent O’Connor requests in a grounded, non-speculative manner.
While this decision may seem innocuous at first glance and of limited application to only breathalyzer devices, it is likely that the SCC has paved the path in anticipation for other technological devices used (or to be used) by policing services throughout Canada. The logic of the Court’s decision will have an impact on future disclosure motions that pertain to software and hard-ware used by police and their applicability to the constitutional rights of accused persons.
If you have been charged with impaired driving, “Over-80”, refusing to provide a sample, contact Mr. J. S. Patel, Barrister for a free thirty minute initial consultation over the phone. Contact 403-585-1960 to arrange an appointment.
Sexual Assault and Credibility findings in a Criminal Trial: How Credibility can be assessed in Criminal Trials in Canada
In Reginav. J.L., 2018 ONCA 756the OntarioCourt of Appeal set aside the accused’s conviction for sexual assault and ordered a new trial At trial, the case that turned largely on credibility. This case is just one example of a flaw credibility assessment of testimony in a sexual assault cases results in a conviction being overturned on appeal
The accused was convicted of sexually assaulting the complainant at a dance. . The key issues raised in this conviction appeal are (a) the sufficiency of the trial judge’s reasons, (b) whether he properly relied on a behavioural assumption, and (c) on the complainant’s post-occurrence demeanour in convicting the appellant. This case is a good example of the subtleties that may be unearthed in cross-examination during the course of the trial that may not be transparent prior to the commencement of the same.
The Court of Appeal agreed and found that the trial judge did not engage in any analysis of the testimony of the complainant and the accused other than to note “inconsistencies and many lapses of memory.” In fact, the judge essentially relied on two (2) facts to explain why the complainant’s version of the events accepted, namely that: (i) she did not consent to sexual contact; and (ii) that the accused pressed on with attempted intercourse: the complainant’s demeanour after the incident and the finding that it “defied common sense” that a young woman would go outside in a dress in mid-December and consent to sexual activity on the ground.
The court held that the trial judge failed to consider the similarities in the complainant’s emotional state before and after the alleged assault. Her physical state was also consistent with the possibility of having engaged in consensual sexual activity. The trial judge’s assumption about what a “young woman” would or would not do could not be taken as a fact, and yet the trial judge relied on it to reject the accused’s evidence. There was a danger that this reasoning affected the trial judge’s conclusion as to whether the Crown had proven its case. The Appellate Court stated the following in relevant part:
[46] The second basis for the trial judge’s conclusion depended on an assumption about what a “young woman” will and will not do. As mentioned, the trial judge said: “I cannot accept that a young woman would go outside wearing a dress in mid-December, lie down in dirt, gravel and wet grass and engage in consensual sexual activity.” In other words, the trial judge could not accept, or even have a doubt arising from, the appellant’s evidence because the trial judge was of the view that, young women would not do what the complainant was said to have consensually done. There is a real danger that this reasoning contributed to the trial judge’s assessment of whether, on the whole of the evidence, the Crown had proven the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I do not share the trial judge’s view that it can be taken as a fact that no young woman would consensually engage in the alleged behaviour.
[47] Although trial judges must exercise common sense when making credibility findings and resolving what actually happened in a case, relying upon assumptions about what young women will and will not do may impact a judge’s objective deliberation of the reasonable doubt standard. In R. v. Mah, 2002 NSCA 99 (CanLII), [2002] N.S.J. No. 349, at para. 75, Cromwell J.A. (as he then was) stated: “Assumptions about the ways of the world appear to have contributed to the judge’s failure to give proper consideration to the question of whether, on the whole of the evidence, he had a reasonable doubt”. Here, by relying on an assumption regarding what young women will and will not do, as if it were a fact, and in light of the centrality of that assumption to the trial judge’s reasoning, his finding of guilt was tainted by error.
Again, this case is a good example of the subtleties that may be unearthed in cross-examination during the course of the trial that may not be transparent prior to the commencement of the same.
If you have been charged or are about to be charged with sexual assault under section 271 of the Criminal Code of Canada, contact Mr. J. S. Patel, Criminal Lawyerin Calgary or Toronto at 403-585-1960 for an initial consultation.
In Regina v. Vassel, 2018 ONCA 721, the Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the accused’s appeal, set aside his conviction for second degree murder, and ordered a new trial.
Expert Evidence on cell phones and towers in Drugs Trafficking Cases
The Background Facts
The victim was a drug dealer who was shot and killed in the course of a drug deal gone bad. He was also robbed of a quarter-pound of marijuana during the incident.
The relevant facts as recited by the Court of Appeal were: (a)Husam Degheim was a drug dealer who sold marijuana (the ‘deceased’). A middleman proposed a deal. The deceased agreed. The sale of one-quarter pound of marijuana was to take place near a shopping centre in Mississauga. The buyers and seller would meet there. A simple exchange. Money for drugs. Drugs for money. Or so the deceased thought. However, the buyers had different thoughts: (i) no money for drugs; (ii) no drugs for money; (iii) drugs for free; (iv) get the drugs and leave. On the day of the indexed offences, the buyers and seller made their separate ways to the appointed place of sale. Three (3) vehicles parked next to one another. As things began to unfold, the deceased sensed that the simple exchange of drugs for money and money for drugs was not unfolding as it should. He started his vehicle. He intended to frustrate whatever the buyers had in mind. Regrettably, the deceased was unable to escape; and two (2) men approached his van, one of which had a gun. Degheim was shot dead while he sat in the driver’s seat of his van. His wife was beside him in the passenger seat. The drugs were stolen and everyone fled. Mr. Vassel was arrested for the unlawful killing of Degheim. The operating Crown theory was that Mr. Vassel was the shooter. He was convicted for second degree murder at his jury trial.
The Evidence Called at Trial
The Crown alleged that he was the shooter. A jury found him guilty of second degree murder. The main issue at the trial was the identity of the shooter. The Crown Prosecutors called the following relevant evidence at the jury trial:
(a) the testimony of another participant in the robbery and shooting who identified the accused, Mr. Vassel, as the shooter and whose evidence was subject to a Vetrovec caution (see: Vetrovecv. The Queen, [1982] 1 SCR 811, 1982 CanLII 20 (SCC)– this is a caution that ought to be given to a jury generally when considering evidence from disreputable or unsavory witnesses.
(b) circumstantial evidence from several different witnesses, including evidence of post-offence conduct by the accused, which tended to link the accused to the robbery and shooting; and
(3) evidence of eyewitness descriptions of the shooter generally coinciding with the appearance of the accused.
Defences Raised: Alibi and Third Party Suspect
The criminal defence lawyers for Mr. Vassel posited alibi as a defence. That defence was supported by: (i) the testimony of the accused regarding his whereabouts and activities at the time of the shooting; (ii) cellphone triangulation evidence indicating that a cellphone belonging to the accused was away from the crime scene; and (iii) the testimony of a defence witness that further confirmed the accused’s claim that he was elsewhere at the time of the shooting. The other defence raised by counsel for the accused was to invite the jury to consider the possibility that either of two third parties was the shooter. This was through the lens of a third party (3rd) suspect application.
Errors made by the Trial Court.
The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge committed several errors:
First, the Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in admitting evidence adduced by the Crown in cross-examination concerning cellphone usage by drug traffickers. That evidence was objected to at trial on the basis that the said evidence failed to satisfy the Mohan(expert testimony) criteria at the first step or stage of the expert evidence analysis. That evidence should have been excluded on the basis that it was evidence of expert opinion adduced from a witness who was not properly qualified to give it. On this issue, the Court of Appeal concluded:
“If the testimony the Crown adduced from Kristi Jackson in cross-examination consisted in whole or in part of expert opinion on a subject matter beyond the qualifications defence counsel had already established, it was incumbent on the Crown to qualify her as an expert on that subject matter. Crown counsel made no effort to do so before eliciting the opinions he sought, although he did some backfilling after the opinion was given. To the extent that Ms. Jackson’s evidence simply recounted what the Rogers billings revealed, it was not evidence of expert opinion. But to the extent that she offered the opinion about the character of the phone – “drug” vs. “family and friends” – her testimony reflected an opinion that she had not been properly qualified to give.”
Second, the Appeal Court found that the learned Trial Justice erred by erred in instructing the jury to consider a portion of the accused’s evidence with caution or particular care. Specifically on the use of the prior statements.
Third, the Justice had erred in law by failing to instruct the jury correctly about use of the exculpatory evidence provided by eyewitnesses to the robbery and shooting.
All the remaining grounds of the appeal were dismissed by the Court of Appeal. In dismissing those grounds, the court on review held as follows: (i) the trial judge did not err in failing to admit evidence of the accused’s prior out-of-court statements; and (ii) he did not err in refusing to allow the accused to re-open the defence case to respond to a breach of the rule in Browne v. Dunn.
Finally, the court refused to apply the curative provisoin s.686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code. A curative provisois considered under section s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code of Canada, and among other things, it allows an appellate court to consider whether to dimiss an appeal despite the errors of the lower court, if there were no miscarriage(s) of justice or the errors of the lower Court(s) were harmless. In combination of the above noted issues, these errors were not harmless. This is because the evidence against the appellant was not overwhelming. What is more, the main source was the testimony of a Vetrovec witness (see above). Finally, the jury deliberated over five (5) days and twice (2x) reported a deadlock. Based on the foregoing, this was not a case in which the curative proviso can be applied.
If you have been charged with a criminal offence and the matter is likey to proceed to a jury trial, it is important to ensure that sufficient and accurate representations are made on the Court record to that the correct jury charges are addressed.
Contact Mr. J. S. Patel, Barrister for a free initial thirty minute consultation regarding your matter.
Mr. MacIsaac waswas charged with aggravated assault on July 11, 2012, and he proceed with an election for a trial in the Ontario Court of Justice and was convicted on December 16, 2013. On August 31, 2015, the Court of Appeal quashed the conviction and ordered a new trial. The accused’s counsel was served with a summons for the re-trial on November 30, 2015. On February 3, 2016,a ten (10) day re-trial was scheduled to run from February 6 to 17, 2017. On August 25, 2016, the accused applied for a stay under s.11(b). The application was denied on October 26, 2016 and the re-trial went ahead as scheduled. The trial judge reserved her decision following the last day of trial, which was February 16, 2017.On April 18, 2017, the trial judge released her judgment finding the accused guilty of aggravated assault.
The Ontario Court of Appeal court noted that the case was argued on the assumption that the eighteen (18) month presumptive ceiling established in Regina v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 631applied to the re-trial. The court stated that it would deal with the appeal on that basis. The court commented, however:
[27] In my view, the 18-month presumptive ceiling established for a first trial is too long in the circumstances of a re-trial. Re-trials must receive priority in the system, and in the normal course re-trials in the Ontario Court of Justice should occur well before Jordan’s 18-month presumptive ceiling. It may be that a lower presumptive ceiling is appropriate for re-trials.
[28] We heard no argument on this point and it would not be appropriate to say anything more in the context of this case. This case was argued on the assumption that the 18-month presumptive ceiling applies, and I propose to deal with it on this basis. However, the Jordan criteria must be understood in the context of the Crown’s duty to re-try cases as soon as possible.
[29] I begin by reviewing the considerations raised by the parties concerning the calculation of delay. I conclude that the delay in this case either exceeds the presumptive 18-month ceiling or is unreasonable in any event. In either case, the appeal must be allowed and a stay must be granted.
What is more, the court also addressed the issue of when the clock starts for the purposes of a delay analysis in the case of a re-trial. The court held that the time for assessing delay runs from the date the appellate court quashed the conviction and ordered a new trial. Accordingly, the clock started running on August 31, 2015.
In terms of determine when the proverbial clock ceases to run, the court averred that the end date for calculating total delay was either April 18, 2017, which is when the judgement was rendered or February 17, 2017, which again, was the last day of trial. However, given that the factual foundation was not before it, the court stated that it was unnecessary to resolve the issue of whether the time a judgment is under reserve is included in the calculation of total delay. This was because the net delay in the case was unreasonable under either of the above scenarios: (a) First, under the initial scenario, in which reserve time is included, the net delay was over 19 months and exceeded the presumptive ceiling. The Crown had not established the presence of exceptional circumstances that rebut the presumption of unreasonableness. Accordingly, the delay was unreasonable; Second, (b) under the second scenario, in which the time under reserve is not included in the calculation of delay, the net delay was over seventeen (17) months. Although this net delay was below the presumptive ceiling, the defence had met its burden of showing that the delay was unreasonable.
If you have been charged with a criminal offence, it is important to ensure that sufficient and accurate representations are made on the Court record to ensure that your efforts to proceed in a diligent matter are noted despite the tests outlined by the Supreme Court of Canada inRegina v. Jordan. The common-law rules, as stated in this case, provides an example that depending on the facts of each case, may be useful in persuading the Crown or the Justice applies to your case.
If you have been charged with a criminal offence, contact Mr. J. S. Patel, Barrister for a free initial consultation regarding your matter.
Dangerous Driving under the Criminal Code of Canada
In Regina v. Raj, 2018 ONCA 623 (CanLII) the Ontario Court of Appeal dealt with the conviction appeal for an accused person involving a commercial dump-truck operator. It was a case Dangerous Driving involving alcohol and the use of a Commercial Vehicle. The facts underpinning the appeal involved a proven allegation that the accused had driven the raised box of his dump truck into an over-pass. The accused was/is a professional truck driver. On July 31, 2014, he was driving a commercial dump truck on the Queen Elizabeth Highway (“QEW”). There was a trailer attached to the truck whose box could be raised and lowered using a system of buttons and levers in the truck called the Power Take-off (“PTO”) system. That day, the appellant had left the PTO lever in the ‘On’ position. Under certain circumstances, leaving the PTO engaged permitted the trailer to rise.
The accident scene was chaotic and dangerous, and the police placed the accused in a police car for 2.5 hours for his own safety. The following arguments were raised by the accused’s criminal appeal lawyers: First, it was posited that the trial judge erred by concluding that the appellant’s confinement in the police cruiser for 2.5 hours was not an arbitrary detention contrary to s. 9 of the CanadianCharter of Rights and Freedoms. Second, if that argument was successful, then it was argued that result would be that the police breached both his s. 9 and s. 10 Charter rights. This, it was argued, would call for a reappraisal of the trial judge’s s. 24(2) analysis and lead to a different result – the exclusion of the evidence relating to the smell of alcohol on the appellant’s breath. The Court disagreed. It said that the principal, and continuing, purpose of the appellant’s detention was his own safety. His truck had caused a terrible accident with extensive damage to vehicles and a bridge and injuries to several people. The police noticed the appellant walking around a dangerous accident scene and sitting on a guardrail very close to a damaged and collapsing girder. Importantly, his truck was crushed.
The Ontario Court of Appeal also upheld the decision of the trial judge admitting evidence of a smell of alcohol on the accused’s breath even though the police did not provide access to counsel during the detention, breaching s.10(b) of the Charter. The police conduct was only a mistake and not deliberate misconduct, and the police would have smelled the alcohol even if they had acted properly.
What is more, the Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s finding that the accused’s conduct was a marked departure from a reasonable person’s driving. This was mostly due, in large part on the accused’s alcohol consumption, and his failure over forty (40) seconds to notice that the box of his dump truck had raised. The court said that prior to colliding with the bridge superstructure the appellant drove a one (1) kilometer distance for forty (40) seconds without detecting the rising dump box despite its effect on the truck’s handling and despite it being clearly visible from all of the truck’s mirrors.Given all the factors, the Court of Appeal dismissed the possibility of the that period of time constituting an “momentary inadvertence.”
Informer Privilege, Innocence at Stake, Police Obligations
Pre-trial disclosure applications to secure information from confidential informants has been heavily considered by the Supreme Court of Canada in previous cases (i.e. Regina v. Barros, 2011 SCC 51). This case, however, involves an academically interesting question of criminal law. It was eloquently framed in the following manner by the Supreme Court of Canada today in the Reginav. Brassington, 2018 SCC 37, decision that was released by the Court:
When police officers are charged with crimes relating to their conduct during an investigation, can they, at their own discretion, disclose to their defence lawyers information they learned during that investigation that might reveal the identity of a confidential informer?
In very general terms, the the police informer privilege is the common law rule of evidence to the effect that a Crown witness suspected of being, or known to be, a police informer cannot be questioned as to whether or not he is one. Nor can another witness be asked questions which would disclose the identity of a police informer : A.-G. v. Briant(1846), 15 M.&W. 169, 153 E.R. 808, 15 L.J. Ex. 265, cited in Reginav. Blain (1960), 33 C.R. 217 at 219, 127 C.C.C. 267 (Sask.C.A.), also cited in Solicitor-General of Canadav. Royal Commission Re Health Records(1981), 62 C.C.C. (2d) 193 at 219, 23 C.R.(3d) 338 (S.C.C.).
In this case, four (4) police officers were charged with crimes relating to alleged misconduct during a police investigation. This criminal matter arose from the “Surrey Six” investigation, a complex RCMP investigation into a gang-related homicide. According to the Crown, about eighty (80) confidential informers were involved in the investigation.
Prior to their trial, those police officer-defendants applied for a declaration that they could discuss information they learned during the investigation with their defence counsel that might reveal the identity of confidential informers. The assigned case management judge granted the application, declaring that the officers could discuss any information in their possession with counsel. The Crown and the RCMP then brought proceedings to determine whether the communications authorized under the declaratory order constituted “disclosures” within the meaning of s. 37 of the Canada Evidence Act . Pursuant to s. 37(1) of the Act, the Crown may object to disclosures on public interest grounds. Section 37.1 of the Act provides a special right of appeal from a determination of an objection. Sections 37 and 37.1 apply to criminal proceedings and other matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction. The case management judge found that she had jurisdiction to hear the Crown’s objection but dismissed it. The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from the rejection of the s. 37 objection. It characterized the order allowing disclosure as civil rather than criminal in nature, held that an appeal under s. 37.1 was unavailable and held that the Crown could not object to the declaratory order under s. 37 . The case management judge’s declaratory order and the Court of Appeal’s decision were appealed to the Court.
The Supreme Court of Canada granted the Crown and order that the declaratory order should be set aside. An order should be granted pursuant to s. 37(6) of the Canada Evidence Act prohibiting the officers from disclosing informer‑privileged information to their counsel, subject to a successful innocence at stake application. The SCC ruled that the case management judge had jurisdiction to hear the Crown’s objection to the declaratory order under s. 37 of the Canada Evidence Act and an appeal to the Court of Appeal under s. 37.1 was therefore proper. The declaratory order was criminal in nature and therefore within Parliament’s constitutional authority. In determining whether an order is civil or criminal in nature, what is relevant is not the formal title or styling of the order, but its substance and purpose. Here, the order related to the accused’s claim that declaratory relief was necessary to help them make full answer and defence in ongoing criminal proceedings, and it was issued by a criminal case management judge in connection with the rights of the parties in a pending criminal proceeding, regarding what might be done by the accused in conducting their defence. The fact that it was declaratory does not change its essential character.
Furthermore, s. 37 was the proper route for challenging the order, as it authorized a form of disclosure to which the Crown was entitled to object on public interest grounds. The interconnected purposes of ss. 37 and 37.1 are to give the Crown the ability to object to disclosures on public interest grounds, and to grant an interlocutory right of appeal where it is unsuccessful. They provide a valuable tool for the Crown to protect against disclosure of confidential and privileged information, and reflect the fact that the Crown’s ability to object to disclosures on public interest grounds was not meant to be restricted to those circumstances where the disclosure is compulsory and will occur in open court. Disclosures may be equally harmful to the public interest whether they are made in or outside of court, and whether they are made under compulsion or voluntarily.
The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in this case that the officers are not entitled to disclose the informer‑privileged information to their lawyers. This is because the current jurisprudence prevents piercing informer privilege unless the accused can show that his or her innocence is at stake. As such, there is no basis for departing from that rule when the accused is a police officer. Informer privilege arises in circumstances where police receive information under a promise of confidentiality. Informers are entitled to rely on that promise. What is more, the informer privilege rule is a common law rule of long standing and it is fundamentally important to the criminal justice system. Subject to the innocence at stake exception, the privilege acts as a complete bar on the disclosure of the informer’s identity, and the police, the Crown and the courts are bound to uphold it. In order to pierce informer privilege — the innocence at stake test — is, accordingly, onerous; and that privilege should be infringed only where core issues going to the guilt of the accused are involved and there is a genuine risk of a wrongful conviction. In this case, the defence counsel or their the officers (defedants) in this case did not argue that any privileged information in their possession meets the innocence at stake test. Nor did they suggest any information relating to confidential informers was genuinely relevant to their defence.
Furthermore, as previously confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada, defence counsel are outside the circle of informer privilege, that is, the group of people who are entitled to access information covered by informer privilege. In all cases where informer privilege applies, disclosure outside the circle requires a showing of innocence at stake. Limitations placed on what the police officers can say to their lawyers do not create conflicting legal and professional duties; rather, they align with the officers’ professional duties and allow their lawyers to proceed without fear of inadvertently revealing the privileged information their clients possess. The law may require officers to exercise some degree of caution with respect to what they disclose, but that expectation does not meaningfully interfere with their relationship with counsel. The primary purpose of the right to free solicitor‑client communication in a criminal proceeding is to permit the accused and counsel to discuss issues that go to full answer and defence — “solicitor‑client communication” does not have some independent, intrinsic value over and above its relationship to full answer and defence. Like any other criminal defendant, if it becomes clear that the police officers are at genuine risk of conviction, and that this information needs to be disclosed, they can bring a Regina. v.McClure, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 445 . application. The application in this case was not brought under the ordinary McClure process, nor was it adjudicated under McClureprinciples. Instead, the accused sought a pre-trial remedy of declaratory relief, relating not to the scope of privilege, but rather to who is entitled to access information that everyone agrees is within the scope. In such cases, Access to the information will be given only where an accused demonstrates “innocence at stake”,as explained later in these reasons.
Police officers are, when accused of crimes, entitled to expect that they will be treated no less fairly than others who are accused and given the full protection of the law. What they are not entitled to expect is that they will be treated better. There is no reason to advantage police officers who, by virtue of their positions of trust, have information that has been confided to them for safekeeping. It is not their information to exploit for personal juridical gain.
Mr. J.S. Patel is a criminal defence lawyer that assumes conduct of all criminal trial and appeal matters. If you have been charged with a criminal offence, please feel free to call 403-585-1960 for a free initial consultation.
Refusal to Provide a Breath Sample. Call Mr. J. S. Patel, Criminal Lawyer at 403-585-1960 for a consultation.
In Regina v. Suter, 2018 SCC 34, a 6:1 majority of the Supreme Court of Canada allowed the accused’s appeal in part. The Court set aside his 26-month sentence of imprisonment, imposed by the lower sentencing court, for the offence of refusing to provide a breath sample knowing that he caused an accident resulting in a death (Criminal Code, s.255(3.2)),and imposed a sentence of time served of just over ten (10) and a (1/2) half months.
That said, the circumstances of this case are unique as related recently on CBC news. The fatal accident was caused by a non-impaired driving error, and Mr. Suter refused to provide the police with a breath sample because he received bad legal advice. The lawyer he called from the police station expressly told him not to provide a breath sample, and Mr. Suter demurred. Added to this, sometime after the accident, Mr. Suter was attacked by a group of vigilantes who used a set of pruning shears to cut off his thumb. His wife was also attacked in a separate incident. He later pleaded guilty to the s.255(3.2) offence and the other charges were withdrawn.
The sentencing judge imposed a sentence of four (4) months’ imprisonment plus a thirty (30) month driving prohibition. The Judge found that the accident was caused by a non-impaired driving error. He also found that the accused’s refusal to provide a breath sample was the result of bad legal advice and was a mistake of law, which fundamentally changed the accused’s moral culpability. In addition, he noted several other mitigating factors, and also took into account the violent vigilante actions against the accused. However, the Court of Appeal, the Court of Appeal disagreed with this sentence. The Appeal court increased the custodial portion of the sentence to twenty-six (26) months. The court found that: the deficient legal advice did not constitute a mistake of law and it could not be used to mitigate the accused’s sentence; the sentencing judge failed to consider, as an aggravating factor, that the accused chose to drive while distracted in the context of his health and pre-existing alcohol problems; and the sentencing judge erred by taking the vigilante violence into account.
The majority of the Supreme Court held that both the sentencing judge and the Court of Appeal committed errors in principle that resulted in the imposition of unfit sentences. The majority held as follows:
The Court of Appeal erred by effectively sentencing the accused for the uncharged offence of careless driving or dangerous driving causing death. A further error was committed by the Court of Appeal in failing to consider the vigilante violence suffered by the accused. The majority stated that vigilante violence against an offender for his or her role in the commission of an offence is a collateral consequence that should be considered — to a limited extent — when crafting an appropriate sentence.
What is more, the sentencing judge erred in finding that the accused was acting under a mistake of law when he refused to provide the police with a breath sample and that this factor fundamentally changed the accused’s moral culpability. He also erred in giving undue weight to the accused’s non-impairment as a mitigating factor.
Taking into account the attenuating factors in the case, the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada concluded that a sentence of 15 to 18 months’ imprisonment would have been a fit sentence at the time of sentencing. The majority held, however, that in the circumstances of this case – the accused had already served just over 10 and a half months of his custodial sentence and had spent almost nine months waiting for the court’s decision – it would not be in the interests of justice to re-incarcerate the accused.
The final dissenting opinion came from Justice Gascon. His decision was predicated on principles of deference towards the sentencing judge. Justice Gascon would have set aside the 26-month sentence of imprisonment imposed by the Court of Appeal and restored the four-month sentence imposed by the sentencing judge. Gascon J. held that there was no legal basis to justify appellate intervention with the initial sentence in the case.
Right to Counsel and the Admissibility of Statements of Young Offenders in Canada
When the police are interacting with minors the common-law rules of voluntariness and counsel differ relative to adults. The initial stages of the investigation are critical and it is imperative that you understand your rights relative to a police investigation at the outset. In Reginav. N.B., 2018 ONCA 556, the Ontario Court of Appeal set aside a conviction for first degree murder that was allegedly committed by a 16-year-old. The police took incriminating statements from him in violation of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.
The factual basis of the allegations involved the accused allegedly brought a group of people to the body of the deceased, his cousin, and the police were contacted. The young accused was in a highly agitated state; was handcuffed; and placed in a locked police car after pushing a police officer. The police later took him to the police station, and placed in an interview room. He was told (erroneously) by the police that he was not under arrest and did not need his rights read to him. The police then interviewed him, confronting him for changing his version of events and telling him (falsely) that they had incriminating video from a surveillance camera.
At trial, the Crown Prosecutor, fairly conceded that the police breached the accused’s right to counsel and ss.25(2) and 146 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act\ (which govern the taking of statements). The trial judge admitted the accused’s statements, holding the accused had been only a witness in the murder investigation, even if arrested and detained for breaching the peace or obstructing police.
The court held that the trial judge had improperly shifted the burden to the defence to show the accused was psychologically detained. The burden should have been on the Crown regarding both the detention and whether the statutory preconditions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act for the admissibility of his statements had been met. When the proper onus was applied, a reasonable person would conclude the accused had believed he was not free to leave the interview room without speaking to the officers. The Court stated the following in relevant part:
[103] The trial judge’s discussion of burden of proof was confusing – at times he seemed to place the onus on the Crown, and at other times on the appellant. I have concluded that the trial judge held that the appellant failed to meet his burden that he was psychologically detained on a balance of probabilities.
[104] At p. 2 of his ruling, the trial judge first noted that the burden of proof with respect to proving the voluntariness of the statements lay with the Crown and the standard was beyond a reasonable doubt. He then stated that the burden of proof of compliance with s. 146 of the YCJA lay with the Crown, also to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The onus of proof of a breach of s. 10(b) of the Charter lay with the appellant, on a balance of probabilities. So far, so good.
[105] Then, at p. 20 of his ruling, the trial judge stated:
After his arrest at the scene for obstruct police and his transport to the police station for the conduct of an interview until 1:59 a.m. on March 10, 2006, [N.B.] was in effect detained. Until 1:59 a.m. on March 10, 2006, at which time [N.B.] was arrested for first degree murder, no officer advised him of his rights under s. 25(2) of the YCJA or of any of his Charter rights or had the requirements of s. 146 of the YCJA been implemented.
[106] The trial judge considered voluntariness, and found the appellant’s statements and utterances to be voluntary.
[107] Next, he concluded that the appellant had been neither detained nor arrested for the offense he was charged with – first degree murder – prior to 1:59 a.m. on March 10, 2006. At p. 35, the trial judge accepted the evidence offered by way of agreed facts and viva voce evidence of Detective Constables Brooks and Parcells that neither they nor any other police officer had reasonable grounds to consider the appellant a suspect at the time the statements were made. He was satisfied that before the appellant was transferred from the scene to the police station, “the decision was made that he was not under arrest and the removal of the handcuffs by Sergeant [Berriault] was corroborative of that fact, but that [N.B.] was clearly being viewed and treated as a witness only”: p. 36.
[108] Having dealt with the issues of reasonable grounds and arrest, he then turned to whether the appellant had been detained prior to his arrest. He stated at p. 39:
In this case, [the appellant] bears the responsibility of establishing on a balance of probabilities that he was psychologically detained.
[109] As mentioned, this was an error. As I have explained, the
burden to show that he was detained never shifted from the Crown to the appellant. Reading his reasons as a whole, it appears that the trial judge was aware that, if any of the three preconditions to s. 146(2) were met, the burden was on the Crown to establish implementation of the protections beyond a reasonable doubt. However, he failed to appreciate that the burden was also on the Crown to prove the absence of the preconditions beyond a reasonable doubt.
The trial judge also erred by holding that s.146 only applied where the accused is detained or arrested for the offence about which the police were questioning him or her. The statutory protections apply even if the accused has been detained or arrested for an unrelated offence. The court held these were not technical irregularities and thus the statements could not be admitted under ss.146(6).
If you have been charged with a criminal offence and you fall within the Youth Criminal Justice Act., call Mr. J.S. Patel, Criminal Lawyer in Calgary or Toronto at 403-585-1960.
Criminal Lawyer in Calgary and Toronto, DUI, Over 80, Domestic Assault, Sexual Assault, Murder, Legal Aid,
