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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
Assault Assault Trials, Criminal Defence Lawyers for Sexual Assault Charges.
Evidence of sexual activity between a complainant and another person may be admitted if it is not tendered for a purpose prohibited by s.276(1) of the Criminal Code and it satisfies the admissibility test under s.276(2).The basic principles governing the application of s.276 were reviewed in Regina v. T.(M.), 2012 ONCA 511, per Watt J.A., on behalf of the court (at paras. 29-43):
The Governing Principles
Section 276 of the Criminal Codecreates a statutory rule of admissibility.Enacted in negative terms, the section, like other admissibility rules, is exclusionary; it precludes the admission of certain evidence. The exclusionary effect of the rule only becomes engaged when three requirements have been met. For
discussion purposes, these requirements, which are cumulative, may be characterized as:
i.offence charged;
ii.subject-matter; and
iii. purpose.
The exclusionary rule prohibits the person charged from introducing certain evidence (subject-matter) for a specific use (purpose) in proceedings for a listed crime (offence).
The “offence” requirement is satisfied where the proceedings in which evidence is tendered relate to a listed offence.Among the listed offences are the crimes charged here: sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching.
The “subject-matter” requirement, which appears in both sections 276(1) and (2), is best expressed in the language of subsection (2):
Evidence … that the complainant has engaged in sexual activity other than the sexual activity that forms the subject-matter of the charge, whether with the accused or with any other person.
If the subject-matter of the proposed evidence falls outside the statutory language, the exclusionary terms of the provision do not apply.On the other hand, satisfaction of the subject-matter requirement, on its own, will not necessitate exclusion; the “purpose” requirement must also be satisfied.
The “purpose” requirement is crucial to the operation of this exclusionary rule, just as it is with the common law hearsay rule. To engage the exclusionary rule of s. 276, the proposed evidence must be offered to support either of two prohibited inferences grounded on the sexual nature of the activity:
i. that the complainant is more likely to have consented to the conduct charged; or
ii.that the complainant is less worthy of belief.
Where the purpose underlying the introduction of the evidence of extrinsic sexual activity is neither of those prohibited by s. 276(1), this exclusionary rule is not engaged.
Section 276(2) provides an exception to the exclusionary rule. To gain entry under this exception, evidence of the complainant’s extrinsic sexual activity must:
i.be of specific instances of sexual activity;
ii. be relevant to an issue at trial; and
iii. have significant probative value that is not substantially outweighed by the danger of prejudice to the proper administration of justice.
To determine whether the evidence should be admitted under this exception, the presiding judge must follow the procedure described in ss. 276.1 and 276.2 and consider the factors listed in s. 276(3).
The admissibility rules of s. 276 apply only where the evidence proposed for admission is of extrinsic sexual activity on the part of the complainant. A previous allegation of assault, without more, would fall outside the section: R. v. Gervais1990 CanLII 3701 (QC CA), (1990), 58 C.C.C. (3d) 141 (Que. C.A.), at p. 154. Questions that focus on the fact, rather than the details, of an allegation of sexual assault are not prohibited by the section: R. v. M. (A.G.)(1993), 26 C.R. (4th) 379 (Que. C.A.), at p. 393.
To be receivable in a criminal trial each piece of evidence must satisfy three requirements:
• relevance
•materiality
•admissibility.
These requirements are cumulative. Evidence that comes up short on any requirement is excluded from consideration by the trier of fact.
Thus, Section 276 of the Criminal Code permits cross-examination of sexual offence complainants on prior sexual activity only in certain circumstances. In ReginavR.V.,2018 ONCA 547 (CanLII),the Ontario Court of Appeal held that s.276 does not require that the defence particularize specific instances of alleged prior sexual activity. Rather the defence lawyer is only required to demonstrate that the prior sexual activity be “adequately identified”; and tied to a proper purpose. The court ordered a new trial for sexual assault where the defence was wrongly prevented from cross-examining the complainant on her prior sexual activity.
In that case, the Crown at trial had argued that the fifteen (15) year-old complainant’s pregnancy was consistent with her allegations. This implied that only the accused could be the father. The application judge dismissed the defence’s application under s.276 to cross-examine the complainant on whether this was true. The Court of Appeal held that “the Crown’s position amounted to this: we say you are the only one who could have impregnated the complainant but you are not allowed to question her about whether this is true” (at para. 27). This, the Court of Appeal found, was “patently unfair.”
The Ontario Court of Appeal held that although there was no “fixed rule” that required granting the s.276 application, the application judge erred by requiring the defence to articulate particularized “specific instances of sexual activity.” The sexual activity was adequately identified as any activity that could have caused the pregnancy. The court’s focus should be on the probative value of the line of questioning, not on the likelihood that the cross-examination will produce results. It was no substitute to permit the defence to simply ask the complainant whether she was telling the truth; the point of cross-examination is to challenge the witness’s answers.
The court also held the trial judge, who replaced the application judge before trial, erred by holding he lacked jurisdiction to revisit the application judge’s s.276 application. A trial judge always has jurisdiction to revisit prior rulings in the same trial, and this is also true where the trial judge has replaced another judge.
Being charged with a serious, violent crime like sexual assault, may call for the assistance of an Criminal Defence lawyer in Alberta or other provinces in Canada. A lawyer will review all the evidence about the alleged sexual assault; and advise his or her client on how best to fight any charges. If the accused was not taken into custody according to the letter of the law, a lawyer might be able to have the charges dropped. An accused client has the right to mount an aggressive defense with the knowledge that it is incumbent upon the Crown to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
If you have been charged with a sexual assault offence under the Criminal Code of Canada, contact Mr. J.S. Patel, Calgary Criminal Lawyer for an initial free consultation at 403-585-1960.
If you have been convicted of a Criminal Code offence or of an offence under an Act of Parliament resulting in a jail term, an application can be made to secure judicial interim release (i.e. Bail) pending the outcome of your appeal.
It is critical to note, that the criminal law standards for securing bail are elevated, primarily due to the loss of the presumption of innocence due to the entry of the conviction. Section 679(3) of the Criminal Code allows a judge of a court of appeal to order the release of an offender who has appealed his (or her) conviction “if the appellant establishes that (a) the appeal … is not frivolous; (b) he will surrender himself into custody in accordance with the terms of the order; and (c) his detention is not necessary in the public interest.” There are two (2) components to the last criterion. The offender must establish that he or she is not a threat to public safety – the offender will not commit a criminal offence while on bail – and that a reasonable person who is thoughtful, dispassionate, informed and respectful of society’s fundamental values would not lose confidence in the administration of justice if the appeal court released the applicant.
In determining the public interest involves the balancing of great many factors. Some were listed in Regina v McNaughton, 2010 ABCA 97at para. 12, 26 Alta LR (5th) 126:
Without attempting to compile a complete list, some of the factors that are relevant to the exercise of the jurisdiction include:
ensuring fairness in the appeal process, to avoid the prospect of the applicant serving a sentence when the appeal is ultimately allowed (Charter of Rights, s. 11(e); Farinacciat paras. 43, 48; v. Fox, 2000 ABCA 283, 8 M.V.R. (4th) 1 at paras. 18-9; R. v. Colville, 2003 ABCA 133, 327 A.R. 143 at para. 12);
the fact of conviction, and the public importance of respecting the trial decision and the trial process (Nguyen[ (1997), 97 BCAC 86, 119 CCC (3d) 269] at para.18; Farinacciat para. 41; v. Rhyason, 2006 ABCA 120, 57 Alta. L.R. (4th) 31, 208 C.C.C. (3d) 193);
the apparent strength of the grounds for appeal, recognizing that it is not the role of the bail judge to resolve the merits ( v. Heyden(1999), 127 O.A.C. 190, 141 C.C.C. (3d) 570 at paras. 7-8, 12; Rhyasonat paras. 13-18; Colvilleat para. 16);
the standard of review that will be applied by the appeal court ( v. Sagoo, 2009 ABCA 357, 464 A.R. 258 at para. 9);
any risk that the applicant will reoffend if released (Nguyenat para. 7; Foxat paras.18, 20-21);
the applicant’s history of compliance with court orders and legally imposed conditions;
whether the applicant was released pending trial, and if so if his release was uneventful;
whether conditions of release could be crafted that would protect the public interest;
the seriousness of the charges, reflected in the severity of the sentence, although no class of offence is excluded from release (Nguyenat paras. 13, 20-24; Heydenat para. 12; v. R.D.L.(1995), 178 A.R. 142 at para. 5);
the effect on the perception of the administration of justice if the applicant is released, including the perception of an informed and reasonable member of society (Nguyenat paras. 25-6; Rhyasonat para. 20; Foxat para. 18; Colvilleat para. 17);
the status and state of readiness of the appeal (Farinacciat paras. 44, 48; Heydenat para. 12; D.L.at paras. 5, 12).
The Court of Appeal has recently considered two (2) cases that have considered the recent application of this rule: R. v. C.L, infra, and R. v. B.G. Each are discussed below:
Regina v. C.L, infra
The Ontario of Court of Appeal dismissed the accused’s application for bail pending appeal. Following a judge-alone trial, the accused in this case was convicted of sexual assault and being unlawfully in a dwelling house. As a consequence of the conviction and the outcome of the sentencing hearing, this accused person received a sentence of two (2) years less a day imprisonment plus two (2) years of probation. His application for bail pending appeal was dismissed. In dismissing the accused’s application, Trotter J.A. held that the public interest criterion was not met. This was because “[t]he materials filed fail to demonstrate that the grounds of appeal have sufficient strength to overcome the serious enforceability considerations present in this case” (at para. 21).
The Ontario Court of Appeal took umbrage with accused’s new charges of breach of recognizance, combined with his failure to mention them in his bail pending appeal affidavits. The Court stated that it did not inspire confidence about compliance with any bail pending appeal order that might be made. Justice Trotter stated as follows (at para. 13): “The new criminal charges should have been disclosed. Judges of this court rely heavily on the trustworthiness of affidavits sworn in support of bail pending appeal applications. They are expected to be both accurate and completeRegina v. B.G, Infra,
In Regina and B.G., 2018 ONCA 455 (RD), Justice Brown of the Ontario Court of Appeal, granted the accused’s application for bail pending appeal from his conviction for child pornography and sexual offences. The trial judge found that the accused had taken and distributed photographs depicting his young daughter naked. The Crown opposed the application on the grounds that the public interest criterion was not met. The public interest criterion in s. 679(3)(c) of the Criminal Code consists of two components: public safety and public confidence in the administration of justice:R v. Oland, 2017 SCC 17, [2017] 1 S.C.R. 250, at paras. 23 & 26. The public confidence criterion requires balancing several factors: the seriousness of the offence; the strength of the grounds of appeal; public safety; and flight risks: Oland, at paras. 37-
Justice Brown held as follows:
[12] The offences of which the applicant was convicted are very serious, involving as they do a vulnerable young child. However, when that factor is weighed with the remaining factors under the Oland public interest test – the strength of the grounds of appeal, no flight risk, and no threat to public safety – on balance, reviewability is favoured over enforceability.
“The offences of which the applicant was convicted are very serious, involving as they do a vulnerable young child. However, when that factor is weighed with the remaining factors under the Oland public interest test – the strength of the grounds of appeal, no flight risk, and no threat to public safety – on balance, reviewability is favoured over enforceability.”
These cases demonstrate the importance of the benefits of a properly prepared bail application (affidavits and arguments). The procedure in securing bail prior to trial differs markedly when a conviction has been entered and a person has been remanded into custody.
If you have been convicted of a criminal code offence and you are seeking bail, contact Mr. J.S. Patel, Barrister at 403-585-1960 to secure a telephone consultation.
Criminal Lawyer in Calgary and Toronto, DUI, Over 80, Domestic Assault, Sexual Assault, Murder, Legal Aid,
