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.
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.
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.
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.
Mr. MacIsaac waswas charged with aggravated assault on July 11, 2012, and he proceed with an election for a trial in the Ontario Court of Justice and was convicted on December 16, 2013. On August 31, 2015, the Court of Appeal quashed the conviction and ordered a new trial. The accused’s counsel was served with a summons for the re-trial on November 30, 2015. On February 3, 2016,a ten (10) day re-trial was scheduled to run from February 6 to 17, 2017. On August 25, 2016, the accused applied for a stay under s.11(b). The application was denied on October 26, 2016 and the re-trial went ahead as scheduled. The trial judge reserved her decision following the last day of trial, which was February 16, 2017.On April 18, 2017, the trial judge released her judgment finding the accused guilty of aggravated assault.
The Ontario Court of Appeal court noted that the case was argued on the assumption that the eighteen (18) month presumptive ceiling established in Regina v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 631applied to the re-trial. The court stated that it would deal with the appeal on that basis. The court commented, however:
[27] In my view, the 18-month presumptive ceiling established for a first trial is too long in the circumstances of a re-trial. Re-trials must receive priority in the system, and in the normal course re-trials in the Ontario Court of Justice should occur well before Jordan’s 18-month presumptive ceiling. It may be that a lower presumptive ceiling is appropriate for re-trials.
[28] We heard no argument on this point and it would not be appropriate to say anything more in the context of this case. This case was argued on the assumption that the 18-month presumptive ceiling applies, and I propose to deal with it on this basis. However, the Jordan criteria must be understood in the context of the Crown’s duty to re-try cases as soon as possible.
[29] I begin by reviewing the considerations raised by the parties concerning the calculation of delay. I conclude that the delay in this case either exceeds the presumptive 18-month ceiling or is unreasonable in any event. In either case, the appeal must be allowed and a stay must be granted.
What is more, the court also addressed the issue of when the clock starts for the purposes of a delay analysis in the case of a re-trial. The court held that the time for assessing delay runs from the date the appellate court quashed the conviction and ordered a new trial. Accordingly, the clock started running on August 31, 2015.
In terms of determine when the proverbial clock ceases to run, the court averred that the end date for calculating total delay was either April 18, 2017, which is when the judgement was rendered or February 17, 2017, which again, was the last day of trial. However, given that the factual foundation was not before it, the court stated that it was unnecessary to resolve the issue of whether the time a judgment is under reserve is included in the calculation of total delay. This was because the net delay in the case was unreasonable under either of the above scenarios: (a) First, under the initial scenario, in which reserve time is included, the net delay was over 19 months and exceeded the presumptive ceiling. The Crown had not established the presence of exceptional circumstances that rebut the presumption of unreasonableness. Accordingly, the delay was unreasonable; Second, (b) under the second scenario, in which the time under reserve is not included in the calculation of delay, the net delay was over seventeen (17) months. Although this net delay was below the presumptive ceiling, the defence had met its burden of showing that the delay was unreasonable.
If you have been charged with a criminal offence, it is important to ensure that sufficient and accurate representations are made on the Court record to ensure that your efforts to proceed in a diligent matter are noted despite the tests outlined by the Supreme Court of Canada inRegina v. Jordan. The common-law rules, as stated in this case, provides an example that depending on the facts of each case, may be useful in persuading the Crown or the Justice applies to your case.
If you have been charged with a criminal offence, contact Mr. J. S. Patel, Barrister for a free initial consultation regarding your matter.
Dangerous Driving under the Criminal Code of Canada
In Regina v. Raj, 2018 ONCA 623 (CanLII) the Ontario Court of Appeal dealt with the conviction appeal for an accused person involving a commercial dump-truck operator. It was a case Dangerous Driving involving alcohol and the use of a Commercial Vehicle. The facts underpinning the appeal involved a proven allegation that the accused had driven the raised box of his dump truck into an over-pass. The accused was/is a professional truck driver. On July 31, 2014, he was driving a commercial dump truck on the Queen Elizabeth Highway (“QEW”). There was a trailer attached to the truck whose box could be raised and lowered using a system of buttons and levers in the truck called the Power Take-off (“PTO”) system. That day, the appellant had left the PTO lever in the ‘On’ position. Under certain circumstances, leaving the PTO engaged permitted the trailer to rise.
The accident scene was chaotic and dangerous, and the police placed the accused in a police car for 2.5 hours for his own safety. The following arguments were raised by the accused’s criminal appeal lawyers: First, it was posited that the trial judge erred by concluding that the appellant’s confinement in the police cruiser for 2.5 hours was not an arbitrary detention contrary to s. 9 of the CanadianCharter of Rights and Freedoms. Second, if that argument was successful, then it was argued that result would be that the police breached both his s. 9 and s. 10 Charter rights. This, it was argued, would call for a reappraisal of the trial judge’s s. 24(2) analysis and lead to a different result – the exclusion of the evidence relating to the smell of alcohol on the appellant’s breath. The Court disagreed. It said that the principal, and continuing, purpose of the appellant’s detention was his own safety. His truck had caused a terrible accident with extensive damage to vehicles and a bridge and injuries to several people. The police noticed the appellant walking around a dangerous accident scene and sitting on a guardrail very close to a damaged and collapsing girder. Importantly, his truck was crushed.
The Ontario Court of Appeal also upheld the decision of the trial judge admitting evidence of a smell of alcohol on the accused’s breath even though the police did not provide access to counsel during the detention, breaching s.10(b) of the Charter. The police conduct was only a mistake and not deliberate misconduct, and the police would have smelled the alcohol even if they had acted properly.
What is more, the Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s finding that the accused’s conduct was a marked departure from a reasonable person’s driving. This was mostly due, in large part on the accused’s alcohol consumption, and his failure over forty (40) seconds to notice that the box of his dump truck had raised. The court said that prior to colliding with the bridge superstructure the appellant drove a one (1) kilometer distance for forty (40) seconds without detecting the rising dump box despite its effect on the truck’s handling and despite it being clearly visible from all of the truck’s mirrors.Given all the factors, the Court of Appeal dismissed the possibility of the that period of time constituting an “momentary inadvertence.”
Informer Privilege, Innocence at Stake, Police Obligations
Pre-trial disclosure applications to secure information from confidential informants has been heavily considered by the Supreme Court of Canada in previous cases (i.e. Regina v. Barros, 2011 SCC 51). This case, however, involves an academically interesting question of criminal law. It was eloquently framed in the following manner by the Supreme Court of Canada today in the Reginav. Brassington, 2018 SCC 37, decision that was released by the Court:
When police officers are charged with crimes relating to their conduct during an investigation, can they, at their own discretion, disclose to their defence lawyers information they learned during that investigation that might reveal the identity of a confidential informer?
In very general terms, the the police informer privilege is the common law rule of evidence to the effect that a Crown witness suspected of being, or known to be, a police informer cannot be questioned as to whether or not he is one. Nor can another witness be asked questions which would disclose the identity of a police informer : A.-G. v. Briant(1846), 15 M.&W. 169, 153 E.R. 808, 15 L.J. Ex. 265, cited in Reginav. Blain (1960), 33 C.R. 217 at 219, 127 C.C.C. 267 (Sask.C.A.), also cited in Solicitor-General of Canadav. Royal Commission Re Health Records(1981), 62 C.C.C. (2d) 193 at 219, 23 C.R.(3d) 338 (S.C.C.).
In this case, four (4) police officers were charged with crimes relating to alleged misconduct during a police investigation. This criminal matter arose from the “Surrey Six” investigation, a complex RCMP investigation into a gang-related homicide. According to the Crown, about eighty (80) confidential informers were involved in the investigation.
Prior to their trial, those police officer-defendants applied for a declaration that they could discuss information they learned during the investigation with their defence counsel that might reveal the identity of confidential informers. The assigned case management judge granted the application, declaring that the officers could discuss any information in their possession with counsel. The Crown and the RCMP then brought proceedings to determine whether the communications authorized under the declaratory order constituted “disclosures” within the meaning of s. 37 of the Canada Evidence Act . Pursuant to s. 37(1) of the Act, the Crown may object to disclosures on public interest grounds. Section 37.1 of the Act provides a special right of appeal from a determination of an objection. Sections 37 and 37.1 apply to criminal proceedings and other matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction. The case management judge found that she had jurisdiction to hear the Crown’s objection but dismissed it. The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from the rejection of the s. 37 objection. It characterized the order allowing disclosure as civil rather than criminal in nature, held that an appeal under s. 37.1 was unavailable and held that the Crown could not object to the declaratory order under s. 37 . The case management judge’s declaratory order and the Court of Appeal’s decision were appealed to the Court.
The Supreme Court of Canada granted the Crown and order that the declaratory order should be set aside. An order should be granted pursuant to s. 37(6) of the Canada Evidence Act prohibiting the officers from disclosing informer‑privileged information to their counsel, subject to a successful innocence at stake application. The SCC ruled that the case management judge had jurisdiction to hear the Crown’s objection to the declaratory order under s. 37 of the Canada Evidence Act and an appeal to the Court of Appeal under s. 37.1 was therefore proper. The declaratory order was criminal in nature and therefore within Parliament’s constitutional authority. In determining whether an order is civil or criminal in nature, what is relevant is not the formal title or styling of the order, but its substance and purpose. Here, the order related to the accused’s claim that declaratory relief was necessary to help them make full answer and defence in ongoing criminal proceedings, and it was issued by a criminal case management judge in connection with the rights of the parties in a pending criminal proceeding, regarding what might be done by the accused in conducting their defence. The fact that it was declaratory does not change its essential character.
Furthermore, s. 37 was the proper route for challenging the order, as it authorized a form of disclosure to which the Crown was entitled to object on public interest grounds. The interconnected purposes of ss. 37 and 37.1 are to give the Crown the ability to object to disclosures on public interest grounds, and to grant an interlocutory right of appeal where it is unsuccessful. They provide a valuable tool for the Crown to protect against disclosure of confidential and privileged information, and reflect the fact that the Crown’s ability to object to disclosures on public interest grounds was not meant to be restricted to those circumstances where the disclosure is compulsory and will occur in open court. Disclosures may be equally harmful to the public interest whether they are made in or outside of court, and whether they are made under compulsion or voluntarily.
The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in this case that the officers are not entitled to disclose the informer‑privileged information to their lawyers. This is because the current jurisprudence prevents piercing informer privilege unless the accused can show that his or her innocence is at stake. As such, there is no basis for departing from that rule when the accused is a police officer. Informer privilege arises in circumstances where police receive information under a promise of confidentiality. Informers are entitled to rely on that promise. What is more, the informer privilege rule is a common law rule of long standing and it is fundamentally important to the criminal justice system. Subject to the innocence at stake exception, the privilege acts as a complete bar on the disclosure of the informer’s identity, and the police, the Crown and the courts are bound to uphold it. In order to pierce informer privilege — the innocence at stake test — is, accordingly, onerous; and that privilege should be infringed only where core issues going to the guilt of the accused are involved and there is a genuine risk of a wrongful conviction. In this case, the defence counsel or their the officers (defedants) in this case did not argue that any privileged information in their possession meets the innocence at stake test. Nor did they suggest any information relating to confidential informers was genuinely relevant to their defence.
Furthermore, as previously confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada, defence counsel are outside the circle of informer privilege, that is, the group of people who are entitled to access information covered by informer privilege. In all cases where informer privilege applies, disclosure outside the circle requires a showing of innocence at stake. Limitations placed on what the police officers can say to their lawyers do not create conflicting legal and professional duties; rather, they align with the officers’ professional duties and allow their lawyers to proceed without fear of inadvertently revealing the privileged information their clients possess. The law may require officers to exercise some degree of caution with respect to what they disclose, but that expectation does not meaningfully interfere with their relationship with counsel. The primary purpose of the right to free solicitor‑client communication in a criminal proceeding is to permit the accused and counsel to discuss issues that go to full answer and defence — “solicitor‑client communication” does not have some independent, intrinsic value over and above its relationship to full answer and defence. Like any other criminal defendant, if it becomes clear that the police officers are at genuine risk of conviction, and that this information needs to be disclosed, they can bring a Regina. v.McClure, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 445 . application. The application in this case was not brought under the ordinary McClure process, nor was it adjudicated under McClureprinciples. Instead, the accused sought a pre-trial remedy of declaratory relief, relating not to the scope of privilege, but rather to who is entitled to access information that everyone agrees is within the scope. In such cases, Access to the information will be given only where an accused demonstrates “innocence at stake”,as explained later in these reasons.
Police officers are, when accused of crimes, entitled to expect that they will be treated no less fairly than others who are accused and given the full protection of the law. What they are not entitled to expect is that they will be treated better. There is no reason to advantage police officers who, by virtue of their positions of trust, have information that has been confided to them for safekeeping. It is not their information to exploit for personal juridical gain.
Mr. J.S. Patel is a criminal defence lawyer that assumes conduct of all criminal trial and appeal matters. If you have been charged with a criminal offence, please feel free to call 403-585-1960 for a free initial consultation.
Criminal Lawyer in Calgary and Toronto, DUI, Over 80, Domestic Assault, Sexual Assault, Murder, Legal Aid,
