In Regina v. Barton, 2021 ONCA 451 (RD), the Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appellant’s appeal from his convictions for firearms-related offences.
During a warrantless search, police discovered a gun inside a planter located in a common hallway outside the appellant’s apartment. The next day, police executed a search warrant and found ammunition for the gun and a bulletproof vest inside the appellant’s apartment. The appellant was convicted after a trial by judge and jury. The defence had posited that the trial judge erred in concluding the semi-automatic handgun was not “obtained in a manner that infringed or denied” his rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, given the causal, contextual, and temporal links he alleges between the search of the planter and what was conceded by the Crown to be unconstitutional police conduct in seeking to search his apartment without a warrant. In the alternative, the defence argued that the trial judge erred in finding that he did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the hallway or the planter.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in concluding that the gun was not “obtained in a manner” that infringed the appellant’s rights under the Charter. The court noted that there were causal, contextual, and temporal connections between the search of the planter and what was conceded by the Crown to be unconstitutional police conduct in seeking to search the appellant’s apartment without a warrant. Therefore, the gun was unconstitutionally obtained. The Court stated as follows, in relevant part:
[4] Police officers discovered the semi-automatic handgun as a result of a step they had taken to gain unlawful warrantless entry into Mr. Barton’s apartment. Specifically, they moved the planter in the hallway to assist their efforts in breaching the front door. After moving the planter, the officers observed a string protruding from its cylinder. Inferring that the string might be attached to a key that would give them warrantless entry to Mr. Barton’s apartment, the officers pulled the string which led to a bag secreted in the planter. They opened the bag and discovered the semi-automatic handgun inside.
[5] Since the semi-automatic handgun was discovered as a result of a step officers had taken to gain unlawful entry to the apartment, the discovery is causally connected to the Charterbreach: see, R. v. Goldhart, 1996 CanLII 214 (SCC), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 463, at paras. 33-35. The trial judge erred in finding otherwise.
Reference to the discovery of the gun had to be excised from the information to obtain the search warrant. A new trial was required to determine whether excision of the discovery of the gun from the warrant information would lead to a finding that the later warranted search was unconstitutional. The court ordered a new trial on all charges to determine whether excision of the discovery of the semi-automatic handgun from the warrant information will lead to a finding that the later warranted search was unconstitutional. This finding could, in turn, have an impact in deciding whether to exclude the semi-automatic handgun itself, since additional Charter breaches occurring during the same investigation can enhance the seriousness of each of the Charter breaches: see e.g., R. v. Davidson,2017 ONCA 257, 352 C.C.C. (3d) 420, at para. 48.
If you have been charged with a criminal offence, contact Mr. J.S. Patel, Calgary Criminal Defence Lawyer at 403-585-1960.
The Court of Appeal considered the entitlement to a preliminary hearing under Section 535 of the Criminal Code of Canada in Regina v. S.S., 2021 ONCA 479. The Court upheld the order of the review judge, who allowed an application for certiorari from the order of the application judge, who found that the accused was entitled to a preliminary inquiry pursuant to s.535 of the Criminal Code. The court agreed with the review judge that the accused was not entitled to a preliminary inquiry. The accused was charged with one count of sexual assault on a person under the age of 16 and one count of sexual interference. The indexed offences were alleged to have occurred between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2010. At the time that the offences were alleged to have occurred, the maximum penalty for both offences was ten (10) years of jail. There was an increase to the maximum penalty for the offence of sexual assault on a person under the age of 16 was increased to 14 years, if the Crown proceeds by way of indictment, as it had in the instant case in 2005. The maximum penalty for the offence of sexual interference was also increased to 14 years. On September 19, 2019, s.535 was amended to restrict the right to a preliminary inquiry to persons charged with an indictable offence that is punishable by imprisonment for 14 years or more. In December 2020, the accused elected a trial in Superior Court by judge and jury. He requested a preliminary inquiry.
The court concluded that the accused was not facing a punishment of 14 years or more in this case. Therefore, he was not entitled to a preliminary inquiry pursuant to s.535. The court stated (at para. 16) that, in reaching this conclusion, it did not need to “decide whether an accused person can waive their rights under s. 11(i) of the Charter. Even if they can, s. 43(d) of the Interpretation Act would preclude a court from imposing a sentence of more than 10 years.” The court noted that its conclusion in this regard was also consistent with the conclusion reached in Tran v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), [2017] 2 S.C.R. 289 where the Court averred:
17] My conclusion in this regard is also consistent with the conclusion reached in Tran v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness),2017 SCC 50, [2017] 2 S.C.R. 289. In that case, the issue was the immigration consequences of a person convicted of an offence where the maximum penalty was, at the time of the commission of the offence, seven years. However, before conviction, the penalty was raised to 14 years with the result that a conviction for the offence would fall within the definition of serious criminality for immigration purposes. The immigration authorities began proceedings to remove the accused from Canada on the basis that he had been convicted of an offence involving “serious criminality” within the meaning of s. 36(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27(“IRPA”). The accused sought judicial review of the decision to refer his case for an admissibility hearing under the IRPA. In the end result, the Supreme Court of Canada found that the immigration authorities could not rely on the serious criminality provision in part because the maximum sentence for the accused’s offence at the time he committed it was seven years. In reaching that conclusion, Côté J. said, at para. 35:
Turning to the interpretation of “punishable by a maximum term”, in my view, a contextual reading of s. 36(1)(a) [of the IRPA] supports only one conclusion: the phrase “punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years” refers to the maximum sentence that the accused person could have received at the time of the commission of the offence. [Emphasis added].
[18] The appellant attempts to counter this interpretation by submitting that it looks at the circumstances of the offender rather than at the offence itself and thus offends the point made in Windebank, at para. 36: “In my view, the flaw, both in the respondent’s argument and in the decisions below, is that they confuse the seriousness of the offence with the seriousness of the offender, that is, their individual circumstances.”
[19] I do not agree. The situation here and the one in Windebank are not comparable. Here we are dealing with the maximum punishment that was stipulated for the offence at the time that the offence is said to have been committed. Thus, the issue in this case does not involve the personal characteristics of the appellant, in the sense that those personal characteristics might drive the appropriate sentence, such as the possible application of the dangerous offender provisions. Rather, it involves the penalty that can be imposed on the appellant, and anyone else in the same situation, arising from the timing of the offence, as the key for determining the seriousness of the offence for the purpose of s. 535. The personal characteristics of the appellant are not engaged in this analysis. The only connection to the appellant in his personal capacity is that it is the timing of his alleged actions leading to the offence that are of importance.
[20] Further on this point, in Tran, the court supported its conclusion that the timing of the offence determined the maximum sentence for the purpose of s. 36(1)(a) of the IRPA, in part, based on the presumption against retrospectivity, which applies independent of s. 11(i) of the Charter: at para43. In words that are apt to the situation here, Côté J. said, at para. 43: “The purpose of this presumption is to protect acquired rights and to prevent a change in the law from ‘look[ing] to the past and attach[ing] new prejudicial consequences to a completed transaction’ (Driedger (1983), at p. 186).”
If you have been charged with a sexual assault and seek to determine your procedural rights (i.e. preliminary hearing), contact Mr. J.S. Patel,Barrister at 403-585-1960 for a consultation.
Co-principal liability was recently explained by the Court of Appeal in Regina v. Abdulle, 2020 ONCA 106 (CanLII). In circumstances involving co-principals, as is the case here, the liability of parties to an offence is addressed by s. 21 of the Code. In Regina v. Spackman, 2012 ONCA 905, 295 C.C.C. (3d) 177, Justice Watt explained that co-principals are liable where they “together form an intention to commit an offence, are present at its commission, and contribute to it, although each does not personally commit all the essential elements of the offence”: at para. 181. This was also explained in Reginav. Pickton, 2010 SCC 32, [2010] 2 S.C.R. 198, at para. 63. In order to be liable as principals, therefore, the parties must have had the requisite intention. Within the scope of the requisite mens rea required for second-degree murder is outlined in s. 229 of the Criminal Code, which states that culpable homicide is murder where the person who causes the death of a human being either means to cause their death, or means to cause them bodily harm that they know is likely to cause their death and is reckless whether or not death ensues.
In Regina v. Abdulle, 2020 ONCA 106, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the appellants’ convictions for second-degree murder. The convictions arose from an altercation that occurred in the parking lot of the apartment building where the deceased lived. The deceased was stabbed multiple times, beaten, kicked, and stomped on by a group of young people. He was without vital signs when paramedics arrived, and he was pronounced dead at the hospital. The three appellants – Abdulle, Jama and Egal – and a fourth accused, Bryan, were charged with second-degree murder. The Crown alleged that the accused were co-principals in an attack on the deceased, that one or more of them inflicted the fatal stab wounds, and that all had the necessary intent for murder under s.229(a) of the Criminal Code. The jury convicted the appellants and acquitted Bryan. The appellants were sentenced to life imprisonment with no parole eligibility for 12 years. The Court of Appeal made the following findings that: (a)t he trial judge properly instructed the jury on the liability of co-principals and on the mens rea for murder; (b) the trial judge did not err by improperly restricting Abdulle’s evidence; (c)The trial judge did not err by failing to give the jury an Oliver instruction [Regina v. Oliver, [2005] CanLII 3582, [2005] O.J. No. 596 (C.A.), at paras. 50-60] regarding Bryan’s evidence, warning that they should consider his testimony with particular care and caution; (d) the trial judge made no error in allowing counsel for Bryan to cross-examine a witness (Jama’s mother) on her police statement that Egal had a knife, and in failing to grant a mistrial; (e) the trial judge did not err by improperly instructing the jury concerning a witness’s prior inconsistent statement; and (f) the verdict was not unreasonable in relation to Jama.
If you have been charged with a criminal offence, contact Mr. J.S. Patel, Barrister at 403-585-1960 for a consultation.
The application of mental health in the context of bail reviews was recently clarified in a recent decision from the Supreme Court of Canada in Regina v. Myers, 2019 SCC 18. The SCC confirmed animating and cardinal principle right out of the gate at paragraph 1:
“The right to liberty and the presumption of innocence are fundamental tenets of our criminal justice system. In the pre-trial context, release — at the earliest opportunity and in the least onerous manner — is the default presumption in Canadian criminal law. Pre-trial detention is the exception, not the rule.”
Those prefatory remarks permeate the entirety of the decision. In my view this decision addressed a critical gap in the jurisprudence.The query before the Court was determine the correct approach to a detention review under s. 525of the Criminal Code of Canada (the “Code”); and to explain the place of such a review within the larger context of pre-trial custody in Canada. The Court made the following salient points.
It emphasised that Judges and justices at bail hearings should always give very careful consideration to release plans that involve supervised treatment for individuals with substance abuse and mental health issues. Of importance, it stressed at paragraph 67 of the decision that the release into treatment with appropriate conditions will often adequately address any risk, and “we must not lose sight of the fact that pre-trial detention is a measure of last resort”. It noted that Parliament intended the s.525 review provisions to be a safeguard; and that Section 525 bail reviews are not restricted to cases in which there has been an unreasonable delay in bringing the accused to trial, although delay can be relevant to the court’s review.
The onus to apply for a s.525 review is on the prosecution, and accordingly an accused person or their defence counsel need not request a hearing. Detained persons are are entitled to a s.525 hearing. This applies even if they did not have an initial bail hearing. In such cases, the review judge must apply the “ladder principle” (see ReginaAntic, [2017 SCC 27); and determine the issue of bail de novo.
At the review hearing, the task of the judge must centre on the issue of whether “…the continued detention of the accused in custody justified within the meaning of s. 515(10) [the detention provisions]?” In this connection, the hearing is a review of the detention itself, not of any order made in a lower court, although errors in detention orders may justify revisiting the order. With great clarity, Court remarked at paragraph 63:
At the hearing, unreasonable delay is not a threshold that must be met before reviewing the detention of the accused. The overarching question is only whether the continued detention of the accused in custody is justified within the meaning of 515(10). In determining whether the detention of the accused is still justified, the reviewing judge may consider any new evidence or change in the circumstances of the accused, the impact of the passage of time and any unreasonable delay on the proportionality of the detention, and the rationale offered for the original detention order, if one was made. If there was no initial bail hearing, the s. 525 judge is responsible for conducting one, taking into account the time the accused has already spent in pre-trial custody. Ultimately, s. 525 requires a reviewing judge to provide accused persons with reasons why their continued detention is — or is not —justified. Finally, the judge should make use of his or her discretion under ss. 525(9) and 526 to give directions for expediting the trial and related proceedings where it is appropriate to do so. Directions should be given with a view to mitigating the risk of unconstitutional delay and expediting the trials of accused persons who are subject to lengthy pre-trial detention.
In terms of the reception of the evidence, the court may receive any evidence that is credible or trustworthy, unless it existed at the time of the initial bail hearing and is barred by the “due diligence” and “relevance” criteria. And finally, the reviewing judge must give directions to expedite the trial of persons in custody, and to ensure the accused will not be in a “time served” position before the trial date.
If you have been charged with a criminal offence and seeking a bail review on any of your conditions or are seeking you release, contact our office at 403-585-1960.
Supreme Court of Canada strikes down Victim Fine Surcharges.
Upon the imposition of penalty, the Criminal Code of Canada (R.S.C.., 1985, c. C-46)once imposed a victim find surcharges upon the entry of a conviction and/or penalty pursuant to section s. 737. The amount is set by law and is owed for each and every summary conviction or indictable offence. The surcharge is intended to fund government programs designed to assist victims of crime. The surcharge applies regardless of the severity of the crime, the characteristics of the offender, or the effects of the crime on the victim. That section said:
737 (1) An offender who is convicted, or discharged under section 730, of an offence under this Act, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act or the Cannabis Act shall pay a victim surcharge, in addition to any other punishment imposed on the offender.
Amount of surcharge
(2) Subject to subsection (3), the amount of the victim surcharge in respect of an offence is
(a) 30 per cent of any fine that is imposed on the offender for the offence; or
(b) if no fine is imposed on the offender for the offence,
(i) $100 in the case of an offence punishable by summary conviction, and
(ii) $200 in the case of an offence punishable by indictment.
That section was struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada in Regina v. Boudreault, 2018 SCC 58 (CanLII), wherein the majority of that Court struck down the mandatory victim surcharge. A Supreme Court hard a number of appeals together considering the same issue. The section is now of no force or effect. The majority held the victim surcharge was a form of “punishment,” and therefore subject to the Charter right against cruel and unusual punishment pursuant to Section 12 of the Charter. Some of the offenders before the Court lived in dire straights (i.e. serious poverty, deliberating addiction issues, deplorable housing, and physical issues). Some of these offenders were recidivists, who regularly appeared before the courts, and got fined. What is more, the consequences of failing to pay to fee could (but not necessarily) result in being taken into custody (at her Majesty’s Institutions), among other things (i.e. collection agency actions). A fit sentence for the appellants would not include such a fine, and the overall operation and effects of the mandatory fine were grossly disproportionate.
The court continued by positing that the ongoing enforcement of victim surcharges that were imposed before the date of its judgment would violate s.12 of the Charter at each step. This could arise, where the offender is arrested or brought to court for a financial update. The Court stated:
The surcharge constitutes cruel and unusual punishment and therefore violates s. 12 of the Charter, because its impact and effects create circumstances that are grossly disproportionate to what would otherwise be a fit sentence, outrage the standards of decency, and are both abhorrent and intolerable. In the circumstances of this case, the fit sentence for the offenders would not have included the surcharge, as it would have caused undue hardship given their impecuniosity. Sentencing is first and foremost an individualized exercise which balances various goals, while taking into account the particular circumstances of the offender as well as the nature and number of his or her crimes. The crucial issue is whether the offenders are able to pay, and in this case, they are not.
However, the court left open the issue of remedy for persons in this situation, but suggested that remedies are available under s.24(1) of the Charter, and that Parliament could act administratively to create a remedy.
There were two (2) dissenting Justice. Justice Côté, writing in dissent for herself, and Justice Rowe,would have held that:
[114] I respectfully disagree. While I accept that the mandatory imposition of the victim surcharge may have a particularly negative impact on impecunious offenders, I cannot accept that it amounts to treatment or punishment that is truly “cruel and unusual”, as that phrase has been interpreted in this Court’s jurisprudence. Moreover, I am of the view that the impugned provision does not deprive impecunious offenders of their security of the person, and that any deprivation of liberty that may result from the application of s. 737 of the Criminal Code accords with the principles of fundamental justice. For these reasons, I discern no violation of either ss. 12 or 7 of the Charter, and I would dismiss the appeals accordingly.
If you have been charged with a criminal offence, contact Mr. J.S. Patel, Criminal Lawyer in Toronto and Calgary at 403-585-1960.
Balancing the Freedom of Expression and the Reasonable Expectation of Privacy under the Charter when the State seeks Production Orders against the Media.
Last week, the Supreme Court of Canada rendered it’s decision in Regina v. Vice Media Canada Inc., 2018 SCC 53 (CanLII). The appellants, Vice Media, is a media organization and one of its journalists, wrote and published three (3) articles in 2014 based on exchanges between the journalist and a source, a Canadian man suspected of having joined a terrorist organization in Syria. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (the “RCMP”) successfully applied ex parte to the Provincial Court, under s.487.014 of the Criminal Code, for an order directing the appellants to produce the screen captures of the messages exchanged with the source. The majority and minority opinions are described below but it is important to note that the new Journalistic Sources Protection Act, S.C. 2017, c.22 was not considered by the Court.
The Majority Opinion
The majority opinion from the SCC stated that the CBC Cases provide a suitable frame-work for execution of production orders and search warrants on the media but refined the test in the following terms stated below. Writing for the majority of the Court, the Honourable Justice Moldaver J. said:
First, rather than treating prior partial publication as a factor that always militates in favour of granting an order, I would assess the effect of prior partial publication on a case-by-case basis.
Second, with respect to the standard of review to be applied when reviewing an order relating to the media that was made ex parte, I would adopt a modified Garofoli standard (see R. v. Garofoli, 1990 CanLII 52 (SCC), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1421): if the media points to information not before the authorizing judge that, in the reviewing judge’s opinion, could reasonably have affected the authorizing judge’s decision to issue the order, then the media will be entitled to a de novo review. Otherwise, the traditional Garofoli standard will apply, meaning that the order may be set aside only if the media can establish that — in light of the record before the authorizing judge, as amplified on review — there was no reasonable basis on which the authorizing judge could have granted the order.
Third, I would reorganize the Lessard factors to make them easier to apply in practice.
When reviewing an application for a production order, the Supreme Court provided the following judicial guidance for lower court judges in the following terms at paragraph 82:
[82] Having settled the main jurisprudential issues on appeal, I wish to take this opportunity to reorganize the Lessard factors to make them easier to apply in practice. On an application for a production order against the media, the authorizing judge should apply a four-part analysis:
(1) Notice. First, the authorizing judge must consider whether to exercise his or her discretion to require notice to the media. While the statutory status quo is an ex parte proceeding (see Criminal Code, s. 487.014(1)), the authorizing judge has discretion to require notice where he or she deems appropriate (see National Post, at para. 83; CBC (ONCA), at para. 50). Proceeding ex parte may be appropriate in “cases of urgency or other circumstances” (National Post, at para. 83). However, where, for example, the authorizing judge considers that he or she may not have all the information necessary to properly engage in the analysis described below, this may be an appropriate circumstance in which to require notice.
(2) Statutory Preconditions. Second, all statutory preconditions must be met (Lessard factor 1).
(3) Balancing. Third, the authorizing judge must balance the state’s interest in the investigation and prosecution of crimes and the media’s right to privacy in gathering and disseminating the news (Lessard factor 3). In performing this balancing exercise, which can be accomplished only if the affidavit supporting the application contains sufficient detail (Lessard factor 4), the authorizing judge should consider all of the circumstances (Lessard factor 2). These circumstances may include (but are not limited to):
(a) the likelihood and extent of any potential chilling effects;
(b) the scope of the materials sought and whether the order sought is narrowly tailored;
(c) the likely probative value of the materials;
(d) whether there are alternative sources from which the information may reasonably be obtained and, if so, whether the police have made all reasonable efforts to obtain the information from those sources (Lessard factor 5);
(e) the effect of prior partial publication, now assessed on a case-by-case basis (Lessard factor 6); and
(f) more broadly, the vital role that the media plays in the functioning of a democratic society and the fact that the media will generally be an innocent third party (Lessard factor 3).
At the end of the day, the decision as to whether to grant the order sought is discretionary (Lessard factor 2), and the relative importance of the various factors guiding that discretion will vary from case to case (see New Brunswick, at p. 478).
(4) Conditions. Fourth, if the authorizing judge decides to exercise his or her discretion to issue the order, he or she should consider imposing conditions on the order to ensure that the media will not be unduly impeded in the publishing and dissemination of the news (Lessard factor 7). The authorizing judge may also see fit to order that the materials be sealed for a period pending review.
[83] As explained above at para. 73, if the order is granted ex parte and is later challenged by the media, the standard of review is determined by applying the following test: if the media points to information not before the authorizing judge that, in the reviewing judge’s opinion, could reasonably have affected the authorizing judge’s decision to issue the order, then the media will be entitled to a de novo review. If, on the other hand, the media fails to meet this threshold requirement, then the traditional Garofoli standard will apply, meaning that the production order may be set aside only if the media can establish that — in light of the record before the authorizing judge, as amplified on review — there was no reasonable basis on which the authorizing judge could have granted the order.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court of Canada found that is it was (a) open to the authorizing judge to proceed ex parte and decline to exercise his discretion to require notice; (b) the statutory preconditions for the production order were satisfied. This is because the Information to Obtain (the “ITO”) provided reasonable grounds to believe that (i) the source of Vice Media had committed certain offences; (ii) the appellants, Vice Media, had in their possession the materials sought by the RCMP; and (iii) finally those materials would afford evidence respecting the commission of the alleged offences.
Additionally, it was open to the authorizing judge, in conducting the balancing exercise as proposed in the CBC Cases, to conclude that the state’s interest in investigating and prosecuting the alleged crimes outweighed the media’s right to privacy in gathering and disseminating the news. What is more, the Court opined that even on a de novo review, the production order was properly granted. They came to this opinion because the SCC felt that the disclosure of the materials sought would not reveal a confidential source. Particularly, no “off the record” information or “not for attribution” communications would be disclosed. Unlike the Regina v. National Post, [2010] 1 SCR 477, 2010 SCC 16 (CanLII) case, “this is not a case in which compliance with the order would result in a confidential source’s identity being revealed.”
In furthering the balancing exercise, there was no alternative source through which the materials sought may be obtained; the source used the media to publicize his activities with a terrorist organization as a sort of spokesperson on its behalf; and the state’s interest in investigating and prosecuting the alleged crimes weighed heavily in the balance. Finally, the authorizing judge imposed adequate terms in the production order.
In terms of the constitutional arguments posited based submissions made under Section 2 of the Charter, the majority further held that it was neither necessary nor appropriate in this case to formally recognize that freedom of the press enjoys distinct and independent constitutional protection under s.2(b) of the Charter. The majority also noted that the case did not attract the new Journalistic Sources Protection Act, S.C. 2017, c.22, because the facts arose before the legislation came into force. Thus, it will be interesting to see future challenges, on similar facts, to the Court under the Journalist Sources Protect Act that arises from facts that post-dates its implementation. It appears that the Court avoided this issue when the minority opinion stated in Obiter Dicta: “None of its provisions, however, was at issue before us. As a result, these reasons have intentionally avoided addressing or applying any of them.”
The Minority Opinion
There was a strong dissenting opinion from Justice Abella who wrote for the four-member minority. The minority judgement would have held that s.2(b) of the Charter “contains a distinct constitutional press right which protects the press’ core expressive functions — its right to gather and disseminate information for the public benefit without undue interference”.
Justice Abella eloquently states:
[111] This case explores the border between vigorous protection for the press and the state’s ability to investigate crime by seeking information from the press. There are, as a result, two provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms at issue in this appeal. One is s. 8, which protects a reasonable expectation of privacy. The other is s. 2(b), which protects “freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication”.
[112] Strong constitutional safeguards against state intrusion are a necessary precondition for the press to perform its essential democratic role effectively. As these reasons seek to demonstrate, s. 2(b) contains a distinct constitutional press right which protects the press’ core expressive functions — its right to gather and disseminate information for the public benefit without undue interference. When the state seeks access to information in the hands of the media through a production order, both the media’s s. 2(b) rights and s. 8 privacy rights are engaged. A rigorously protective harmonized analysis is therefore required.
However, after engaging in the application of the facts, minority opinion would have dismissed the appeal on the basis that “the production order strikes a proportionate balance between the rights and interests at stake”; and the “…benefit of the state’s interest in obtaining the messages outweighs any harm to Vice Media’s rights.”
If you have been charged with a criminal offence, call our office at 403-585-1960 to spea to Mr. J.S. Patel, Barrister. Our office assumes conduct of select constitutional “test-cases” on a case by case basis .
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.
Criminal Lawyer in Calgary and Toronto, DUI, Over 80, Domestic Assault, Sexual Assault, Murder, Legal Aid,
