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.
Informer Privilege, Innocence at Stake, Police Obligations
Pre-trial disclosure applications to secure information from confidential informants has been heavily considered by the Supreme Court of Canada in previous cases (i.e. Regina v. Barros, 2011 SCC 51). This case, however, involves an academically interesting question of criminal law. It was eloquently framed in the following manner by the Supreme Court of Canada today in the Reginav. Brassington, 2018 SCC 37, decision that was released by the Court:
When police officers are charged with crimes relating to their conduct during an investigation, can they, at their own discretion, disclose to their defence lawyers information they learned during that investigation that might reveal the identity of a confidential informer?
In very general terms, the the police informer privilege is the common law rule of evidence to the effect that a Crown witness suspected of being, or known to be, a police informer cannot be questioned as to whether or not he is one. Nor can another witness be asked questions which would disclose the identity of a police informer : A.-G. v. Briant(1846), 15 M.&W. 169, 153 E.R. 808, 15 L.J. Ex. 265, cited in Reginav. Blain (1960), 33 C.R. 217 at 219, 127 C.C.C. 267 (Sask.C.A.), also cited in Solicitor-General of Canadav. Royal Commission Re Health Records(1981), 62 C.C.C. (2d) 193 at 219, 23 C.R.(3d) 338 (S.C.C.).
In this case, four (4) police officers were charged with crimes relating to alleged misconduct during a police investigation. This criminal matter arose from the “Surrey Six” investigation, a complex RCMP investigation into a gang-related homicide. According to the Crown, about eighty (80) confidential informers were involved in the investigation.
Prior to their trial, those police officer-defendants applied for a declaration that they could discuss information they learned during the investigation with their defence counsel that might reveal the identity of confidential informers. The assigned case management judge granted the application, declaring that the officers could discuss any information in their possession with counsel. The Crown and the RCMP then brought proceedings to determine whether the communications authorized under the declaratory order constituted “disclosures” within the meaning of s. 37 of the Canada Evidence Act . Pursuant to s. 37(1) of the Act, the Crown may object to disclosures on public interest grounds. Section 37.1 of the Act provides a special right of appeal from a determination of an objection. Sections 37 and 37.1 apply to criminal proceedings and other matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction. The case management judge found that she had jurisdiction to hear the Crown’s objection but dismissed it. The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from the rejection of the s. 37 objection. It characterized the order allowing disclosure as civil rather than criminal in nature, held that an appeal under s. 37.1 was unavailable and held that the Crown could not object to the declaratory order under s. 37 . The case management judge’s declaratory order and the Court of Appeal’s decision were appealed to the Court.
The Supreme Court of Canada granted the Crown and order that the declaratory order should be set aside. An order should be granted pursuant to s. 37(6) of the Canada Evidence Act prohibiting the officers from disclosing informer‑privileged information to their counsel, subject to a successful innocence at stake application. The SCC ruled that the case management judge had jurisdiction to hear the Crown’s objection to the declaratory order under s. 37 of the Canada Evidence Act and an appeal to the Court of Appeal under s. 37.1 was therefore proper. The declaratory order was criminal in nature and therefore within Parliament’s constitutional authority. In determining whether an order is civil or criminal in nature, what is relevant is not the formal title or styling of the order, but its substance and purpose. Here, the order related to the accused’s claim that declaratory relief was necessary to help them make full answer and defence in ongoing criminal proceedings, and it was issued by a criminal case management judge in connection with the rights of the parties in a pending criminal proceeding, regarding what might be done by the accused in conducting their defence. The fact that it was declaratory does not change its essential character.
Furthermore, s. 37 was the proper route for challenging the order, as it authorized a form of disclosure to which the Crown was entitled to object on public interest grounds. The interconnected purposes of ss. 37 and 37.1 are to give the Crown the ability to object to disclosures on public interest grounds, and to grant an interlocutory right of appeal where it is unsuccessful. They provide a valuable tool for the Crown to protect against disclosure of confidential and privileged information, and reflect the fact that the Crown’s ability to object to disclosures on public interest grounds was not meant to be restricted to those circumstances where the disclosure is compulsory and will occur in open court. Disclosures may be equally harmful to the public interest whether they are made in or outside of court, and whether they are made under compulsion or voluntarily.
The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in this case that the officers are not entitled to disclose the informer‑privileged information to their lawyers. This is because the current jurisprudence prevents piercing informer privilege unless the accused can show that his or her innocence is at stake. As such, there is no basis for departing from that rule when the accused is a police officer. Informer privilege arises in circumstances where police receive information under a promise of confidentiality. Informers are entitled to rely on that promise. What is more, the informer privilege rule is a common law rule of long standing and it is fundamentally important to the criminal justice system. Subject to the innocence at stake exception, the privilege acts as a complete bar on the disclosure of the informer’s identity, and the police, the Crown and the courts are bound to uphold it. In order to pierce informer privilege — the innocence at stake test — is, accordingly, onerous; and that privilege should be infringed only where core issues going to the guilt of the accused are involved and there is a genuine risk of a wrongful conviction. In this case, the defence counsel or their the officers (defedants) in this case did not argue that any privileged information in their possession meets the innocence at stake test. Nor did they suggest any information relating to confidential informers was genuinely relevant to their defence.
Furthermore, as previously confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada, defence counsel are outside the circle of informer privilege, that is, the group of people who are entitled to access information covered by informer privilege. In all cases where informer privilege applies, disclosure outside the circle requires a showing of innocence at stake. Limitations placed on what the police officers can say to their lawyers do not create conflicting legal and professional duties; rather, they align with the officers’ professional duties and allow their lawyers to proceed without fear of inadvertently revealing the privileged information their clients possess. The law may require officers to exercise some degree of caution with respect to what they disclose, but that expectation does not meaningfully interfere with their relationship with counsel. The primary purpose of the right to free solicitor‑client communication in a criminal proceeding is to permit the accused and counsel to discuss issues that go to full answer and defence — “solicitor‑client communication” does not have some independent, intrinsic value over and above its relationship to full answer and defence. Like any other criminal defendant, if it becomes clear that the police officers are at genuine risk of conviction, and that this information needs to be disclosed, they can bring a Regina. v.McClure, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 445 . application. The application in this case was not brought under the ordinary McClure process, nor was it adjudicated under McClureprinciples. Instead, the accused sought a pre-trial remedy of declaratory relief, relating not to the scope of privilege, but rather to who is entitled to access information that everyone agrees is within the scope. In such cases, Access to the information will be given only where an accused demonstrates “innocence at stake”,as explained later in these reasons.
Police officers are, when accused of crimes, entitled to expect that they will be treated no less fairly than others who are accused and given the full protection of the law. What they are not entitled to expect is that they will be treated better. There is no reason to advantage police officers who, by virtue of their positions of trust, have information that has been confided to them for safekeeping. It is not their information to exploit for personal juridical gain.
Mr. J.S. Patel is a criminal defence lawyer that assumes conduct of all criminal trial and appeal matters. If you have been charged with a criminal offence, please feel free to call 403-585-1960 for a free initial consultation.
Refusal to Provide a Breath Sample. Call Mr. J. S. Patel, Criminal Lawyer at 403-585-1960 for a consultation.
In Regina v. Suter, 2018 SCC 34, a 6:1 majority of the Supreme Court of Canada allowed the accused’s appeal in part. The Court set aside his 26-month sentence of imprisonment, imposed by the lower sentencing court, for the offence of refusing to provide a breath sample knowing that he caused an accident resulting in a death (Criminal Code, s.255(3.2)),and imposed a sentence of time served of just over ten (10) and a (1/2) half months.
That said, the circumstances of this case are unique as related recently on CBC news. The fatal accident was caused by a non-impaired driving error, and Mr. Suter refused to provide the police with a breath sample because he received bad legal advice. The lawyer he called from the police station expressly told him not to provide a breath sample, and Mr. Suter demurred. Added to this, sometime after the accident, Mr. Suter was attacked by a group of vigilantes who used a set of pruning shears to cut off his thumb. His wife was also attacked in a separate incident. He later pleaded guilty to the s.255(3.2) offence and the other charges were withdrawn.
The sentencing judge imposed a sentence of four (4) months’ imprisonment plus a thirty (30) month driving prohibition. The Judge found that the accident was caused by a non-impaired driving error. He also found that the accused’s refusal to provide a breath sample was the result of bad legal advice and was a mistake of law, which fundamentally changed the accused’s moral culpability. In addition, he noted several other mitigating factors, and also took into account the violent vigilante actions against the accused. However, the Court of Appeal, the Court of Appeal disagreed with this sentence. The Appeal court increased the custodial portion of the sentence to twenty-six (26) months. The court found that: the deficient legal advice did not constitute a mistake of law and it could not be used to mitigate the accused’s sentence; the sentencing judge failed to consider, as an aggravating factor, that the accused chose to drive while distracted in the context of his health and pre-existing alcohol problems; and the sentencing judge erred by taking the vigilante violence into account.
The majority of the Supreme Court held that both the sentencing judge and the Court of Appeal committed errors in principle that resulted in the imposition of unfit sentences. The majority held as follows:
The Court of Appeal erred by effectively sentencing the accused for the uncharged offence of careless driving or dangerous driving causing death. A further error was committed by the Court of Appeal in failing to consider the vigilante violence suffered by the accused. The majority stated that vigilante violence against an offender for his or her role in the commission of an offence is a collateral consequence that should be considered — to a limited extent — when crafting an appropriate sentence.
What is more, the sentencing judge erred in finding that the accused was acting under a mistake of law when he refused to provide the police with a breath sample and that this factor fundamentally changed the accused’s moral culpability. He also erred in giving undue weight to the accused’s non-impairment as a mitigating factor.
Taking into account the attenuating factors in the case, the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada concluded that a sentence of 15 to 18 months’ imprisonment would have been a fit sentence at the time of sentencing. The majority held, however, that in the circumstances of this case – the accused had already served just over 10 and a half months of his custodial sentence and had spent almost nine months waiting for the court’s decision – it would not be in the interests of justice to re-incarcerate the accused.
The final dissenting opinion came from Justice Gascon. His decision was predicated on principles of deference towards the sentencing judge. Justice Gascon would have set aside the 26-month sentence of imprisonment imposed by the Court of Appeal and restored the four-month sentence imposed by the sentencing judge. Gascon J. held that there was no legal basis to justify appellate intervention with the initial sentence in the case.
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.
Criminal Lawyer in Calgary and Toronto, DUI, Over 80, Domestic Assault, Sexual Assault, Murder, Legal Aid,
