In Regina v. Barton, 2021 ONCA 451 (RD), the Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appellant’s appeal from his convictions for firearms-related offences.
During a warrantless search, police discovered a gun inside a planter located in a common hallway outside the appellant’s apartment. The next day, police executed a search warrant and found ammunition for the gun and a bulletproof vest inside the appellant’s apartment. The appellant was convicted after a trial by judge and jury. The defence had posited that the trial judge erred in concluding the semi-automatic handgun was not “obtained in a manner that infringed or denied” his rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, given the causal, contextual, and temporal links he alleges between the search of the planter and what was conceded by the Crown to be unconstitutional police conduct in seeking to search his apartment without a warrant. In the alternative, the defence argued that the trial judge erred in finding that he did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the hallway or the planter.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in concluding that the gun was not “obtained in a manner” that infringed the appellant’s rights under the Charter. The court noted that there were causal, contextual, and temporal connections between the search of the planter and what was conceded by the Crown to be unconstitutional police conduct in seeking to search the appellant’s apartment without a warrant. Therefore, the gun was unconstitutionally obtained. The Court stated as follows, in relevant part:
[4] Police officers discovered the semi-automatic handgun as a result of a step they had taken to gain unlawful warrantless entry into Mr. Barton’s apartment. Specifically, they moved the planter in the hallway to assist their efforts in breaching the front door. After moving the planter, the officers observed a string protruding from its cylinder. Inferring that the string might be attached to a key that would give them warrantless entry to Mr. Barton’s apartment, the officers pulled the string which led to a bag secreted in the planter. They opened the bag and discovered the semi-automatic handgun inside.
[5] Since the semi-automatic handgun was discovered as a result of a step officers had taken to gain unlawful entry to the apartment, the discovery is causally connected to the Charterbreach: see, R. v. Goldhart, 1996 CanLII 214 (SCC), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 463, at paras. 33-35. The trial judge erred in finding otherwise.
Reference to the discovery of the gun had to be excised from the information to obtain the search warrant. A new trial was required to determine whether excision of the discovery of the gun from the warrant information would lead to a finding that the later warranted search was unconstitutional. The court ordered a new trial on all charges to determine whether excision of the discovery of the semi-automatic handgun from the warrant information will lead to a finding that the later warranted search was unconstitutional. This finding could, in turn, have an impact in deciding whether to exclude the semi-automatic handgun itself, since additional Charter breaches occurring during the same investigation can enhance the seriousness of each of the Charter breaches: see e.g., R. v. Davidson,2017 ONCA 257, 352 C.C.C. (3d) 420, at para. 48.
If you have been charged with a criminal offence, contact Mr. J.S. Patel, Calgary Criminal Defence Lawyer at 403-585-1960.
The Court of Appeal considered the entitlement to a preliminary hearing under Section 535 of the Criminal Code of Canada in Regina v. S.S., 2021 ONCA 479. The Court upheld the order of the review judge, who allowed an application for certiorari from the order of the application judge, who found that the accused was entitled to a preliminary inquiry pursuant to s.535 of the Criminal Code. The court agreed with the review judge that the accused was not entitled to a preliminary inquiry. The accused was charged with one count of sexual assault on a person under the age of 16 and one count of sexual interference. The indexed offences were alleged to have occurred between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2010. At the time that the offences were alleged to have occurred, the maximum penalty for both offences was ten (10) years of jail. There was an increase to the maximum penalty for the offence of sexual assault on a person under the age of 16 was increased to 14 years, if the Crown proceeds by way of indictment, as it had in the instant case in 2005. The maximum penalty for the offence of sexual interference was also increased to 14 years. On September 19, 2019, s.535 was amended to restrict the right to a preliminary inquiry to persons charged with an indictable offence that is punishable by imprisonment for 14 years or more. In December 2020, the accused elected a trial in Superior Court by judge and jury. He requested a preliminary inquiry.
The court concluded that the accused was not facing a punishment of 14 years or more in this case. Therefore, he was not entitled to a preliminary inquiry pursuant to s.535. The court stated (at para. 16) that, in reaching this conclusion, it did not need to “decide whether an accused person can waive their rights under s. 11(i) of the Charter. Even if they can, s. 43(d) of the Interpretation Act would preclude a court from imposing a sentence of more than 10 years.” The court noted that its conclusion in this regard was also consistent with the conclusion reached in Tran v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), [2017] 2 S.C.R. 289 where the Court averred:
17] My conclusion in this regard is also consistent with the conclusion reached in Tran v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness),2017 SCC 50, [2017] 2 S.C.R. 289. In that case, the issue was the immigration consequences of a person convicted of an offence where the maximum penalty was, at the time of the commission of the offence, seven years. However, before conviction, the penalty was raised to 14 years with the result that a conviction for the offence would fall within the definition of serious criminality for immigration purposes. The immigration authorities began proceedings to remove the accused from Canada on the basis that he had been convicted of an offence involving “serious criminality” within the meaning of s. 36(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27(“IRPA”). The accused sought judicial review of the decision to refer his case for an admissibility hearing under the IRPA. In the end result, the Supreme Court of Canada found that the immigration authorities could not rely on the serious criminality provision in part because the maximum sentence for the accused’s offence at the time he committed it was seven years. In reaching that conclusion, Côté J. said, at para. 35:
Turning to the interpretation of “punishable by a maximum term”, in my view, a contextual reading of s. 36(1)(a) [of the IRPA] supports only one conclusion: the phrase “punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years” refers to the maximum sentence that the accused person could have received at the time of the commission of the offence. [Emphasis added].
[18] The appellant attempts to counter this interpretation by submitting that it looks at the circumstances of the offender rather than at the offence itself and thus offends the point made in Windebank, at para. 36: “In my view, the flaw, both in the respondent’s argument and in the decisions below, is that they confuse the seriousness of the offence with the seriousness of the offender, that is, their individual circumstances.”
[19] I do not agree. The situation here and the one in Windebank are not comparable. Here we are dealing with the maximum punishment that was stipulated for the offence at the time that the offence is said to have been committed. Thus, the issue in this case does not involve the personal characteristics of the appellant, in the sense that those personal characteristics might drive the appropriate sentence, such as the possible application of the dangerous offender provisions. Rather, it involves the penalty that can be imposed on the appellant, and anyone else in the same situation, arising from the timing of the offence, as the key for determining the seriousness of the offence for the purpose of s. 535. The personal characteristics of the appellant are not engaged in this analysis. The only connection to the appellant in his personal capacity is that it is the timing of his alleged actions leading to the offence that are of importance.
[20] Further on this point, in Tran, the court supported its conclusion that the timing of the offence determined the maximum sentence for the purpose of s. 36(1)(a) of the IRPA, in part, based on the presumption against retrospectivity, which applies independent of s. 11(i) of the Charter: at para43. In words that are apt to the situation here, Côté J. said, at para. 43: “The purpose of this presumption is to protect acquired rights and to prevent a change in the law from ‘look[ing] to the past and attach[ing] new prejudicial consequences to a completed transaction’ (Driedger (1983), at p. 186).”
If you have been charged with a sexual assault and seek to determine your procedural rights (i.e. preliminary hearing), contact Mr. J.S. Patel,Barrister at 403-585-1960 for a consultation.
Co-principal liability was recently explained by the Court of Appeal in Regina v. Abdulle, 2020 ONCA 106 (CanLII). In circumstances involving co-principals, as is the case here, the liability of parties to an offence is addressed by s. 21 of the Code. In Regina v. Spackman, 2012 ONCA 905, 295 C.C.C. (3d) 177, Justice Watt explained that co-principals are liable where they “together form an intention to commit an offence, are present at its commission, and contribute to it, although each does not personally commit all the essential elements of the offence”: at para. 181. This was also explained in Reginav. Pickton, 2010 SCC 32, [2010] 2 S.C.R. 198, at para. 63. In order to be liable as principals, therefore, the parties must have had the requisite intention. Within the scope of the requisite mens rea required for second-degree murder is outlined in s. 229 of the Criminal Code, which states that culpable homicide is murder where the person who causes the death of a human being either means to cause their death, or means to cause them bodily harm that they know is likely to cause their death and is reckless whether or not death ensues.
In Regina v. Abdulle, 2020 ONCA 106, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the appellants’ convictions for second-degree murder. The convictions arose from an altercation that occurred in the parking lot of the apartment building where the deceased lived. The deceased was stabbed multiple times, beaten, kicked, and stomped on by a group of young people. He was without vital signs when paramedics arrived, and he was pronounced dead at the hospital. The three appellants – Abdulle, Jama and Egal – and a fourth accused, Bryan, were charged with second-degree murder. The Crown alleged that the accused were co-principals in an attack on the deceased, that one or more of them inflicted the fatal stab wounds, and that all had the necessary intent for murder under s.229(a) of the Criminal Code. The jury convicted the appellants and acquitted Bryan. The appellants were sentenced to life imprisonment with no parole eligibility for 12 years. The Court of Appeal made the following findings that: (a)t he trial judge properly instructed the jury on the liability of co-principals and on the mens rea for murder; (b) the trial judge did not err by improperly restricting Abdulle’s evidence; (c)The trial judge did not err by failing to give the jury an Oliver instruction [Regina v. Oliver, [2005] CanLII 3582, [2005] O.J. No. 596 (C.A.), at paras. 50-60] regarding Bryan’s evidence, warning that they should consider his testimony with particular care and caution; (d) the trial judge made no error in allowing counsel for Bryan to cross-examine a witness (Jama’s mother) on her police statement that Egal had a knife, and in failing to grant a mistrial; (e) the trial judge did not err by improperly instructing the jury concerning a witness’s prior inconsistent statement; and (f) the verdict was not unreasonable in relation to Jama.
If you have been charged with a criminal offence, contact Mr. J.S. Patel, Barrister at 403-585-1960 for a consultation.
The Court of Appeal in Regina v. Esseghaier, 2021 ONCA 162 had occasion to consider the scope of the Crown’s duty to inquire about disclosure held by a third party policing agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (the “FBI”)). The Ontario Court of Appeal addressed some preliminary issues regarding a disclosure application brought by the defendants who were convicted of terrorism offences following a jury trial and sentenced to life imprisonment.
The appealed raised a number of grounds. It was allowed. A new trial was ordered on the ground that the trial judge made an error in the jury selection process (2019 ONCA 672). The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown’s appeal, restored the convictions, and remitted the remaining grounds of appeal to the Court of Appeal for determination (2021 SCC 9). However, in November 2020, the appellants filed a notice of application under s.683(1)(a) of the Criminal Code,requesting an order directing the Crown to obtain and disclose certain information from the FBI . The disclosure application related to a purported communication between the trial judge and the handler for an FBI agent who was a witness at the defendants’ trial. The narrow issue at appeal was whether there was a reasonable apprehension of bias. The defendants wished to advance the appeal on that basis. The Crown brought a motion for directions and requested that the application for disclosure be summarily dismissed.
The court declined to summarily dismiss the disclosure application. The court held that although there was much to be said for the Crown’s position that the alleged communication was not capable of giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias, it was premature to advance that argument at this stage. The court also held that, at this stage, it did not need to resolve the issue of whether or not the court could compel the Crown to have a willsay or affidavit created. The court stated that, pursuant to Regina v. McNeil, 2009 SCC 3, the Crown had a duty to ask the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to make inquiries about whether the alleged communication occurred. The court ordered the Crown to take further steps to obtain the requested disclosure. The Court stated at para 27:
[27] The Crown’s obligation is to make proper inquiries. While the Crown properly asked the RCMP to inquire as to whether Agent El Noury or Nelly had contemporaneous notes or memory aids in respect of the communications, the Crown did not ask for information about the obvious question: did the alleged communication occur? From the outset, the responding parties have been asking for an answer to that question in the form of a willsay or affidavit. While we would not at this stage order that the information be provided in either of those formats, leaving the argument of that matter to another day should the need arise, it is time for the Crown to meet its disclosure obligations and ask the RCMP to make inquiries about:
(a) whether the alleged communication between Nelly and the trial judge, as recounted in Agent El Noury’s book, or some similar type of communication, took place and, if so, whether there are any notes, electronic or otherwise, making reference to that communication?
(b) whether the alleged communication between Nelly and Agent El Noury, as recounted in Agent El Noury’s book, or some similar type of communication, took place and, if so, whether there are any notes, electronic or otherwise, making reference to that communication?
If you have been charged with a criminal offence and require a consultation, call Mr. J.S. Patel at 403-585-1960.
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.
In Regina v. Vassel, 2018 ONCA 721, the Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the accused’s appeal, set aside his conviction for second degree murder, and ordered a new trial.
Expert Evidence on cell phones and towers in Drugs Trafficking Cases
The Background Facts
The victim was a drug dealer who was shot and killed in the course of a drug deal gone bad. He was also robbed of a quarter-pound of marijuana during the incident.
The relevant facts as recited by the Court of Appeal were: (a)Husam Degheim was a drug dealer who sold marijuana (the ‘deceased’). A middleman proposed a deal. The deceased agreed. The sale of one-quarter pound of marijuana was to take place near a shopping centre in Mississauga. The buyers and seller would meet there. A simple exchange. Money for drugs. Drugs for money. Or so the deceased thought. However, the buyers had different thoughts: (i) no money for drugs; (ii) no drugs for money; (iii) drugs for free; (iv) get the drugs and leave. On the day of the indexed offences, the buyers and seller made their separate ways to the appointed place of sale. Three (3) vehicles parked next to one another. As things began to unfold, the deceased sensed that the simple exchange of drugs for money and money for drugs was not unfolding as it should. He started his vehicle. He intended to frustrate whatever the buyers had in mind. Regrettably, the deceased was unable to escape; and two (2) men approached his van, one of which had a gun. Degheim was shot dead while he sat in the driver’s seat of his van. His wife was beside him in the passenger seat. The drugs were stolen and everyone fled. Mr. Vassel was arrested for the unlawful killing of Degheim. The operating Crown theory was that Mr. Vassel was the shooter. He was convicted for second degree murder at his jury trial.
The Evidence Called at Trial
The Crown alleged that he was the shooter. A jury found him guilty of second degree murder. The main issue at the trial was the identity of the shooter. The Crown Prosecutors called the following relevant evidence at the jury trial:
(a) the testimony of another participant in the robbery and shooting who identified the accused, Mr. Vassel, as the shooter and whose evidence was subject to a Vetrovec caution (see: Vetrovecv. The Queen, [1982] 1 SCR 811, 1982 CanLII 20 (SCC)– this is a caution that ought to be given to a jury generally when considering evidence from disreputable or unsavory witnesses.
(b) circumstantial evidence from several different witnesses, including evidence of post-offence conduct by the accused, which tended to link the accused to the robbery and shooting; and
(3) evidence of eyewitness descriptions of the shooter generally coinciding with the appearance of the accused.
Defences Raised: Alibi and Third Party Suspect
The criminal defence lawyers for Mr. Vassel posited alibi as a defence. That defence was supported by: (i) the testimony of the accused regarding his whereabouts and activities at the time of the shooting; (ii) cellphone triangulation evidence indicating that a cellphone belonging to the accused was away from the crime scene; and (iii) the testimony of a defence witness that further confirmed the accused’s claim that he was elsewhere at the time of the shooting. The other defence raised by counsel for the accused was to invite the jury to consider the possibility that either of two third parties was the shooter. This was through the lens of a third party (3rd) suspect application.
Errors made by the Trial Court.
The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge committed several errors:
First, the Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in admitting evidence adduced by the Crown in cross-examination concerning cellphone usage by drug traffickers. That evidence was objected to at trial on the basis that the said evidence failed to satisfy the Mohan(expert testimony) criteria at the first step or stage of the expert evidence analysis. That evidence should have been excluded on the basis that it was evidence of expert opinion adduced from a witness who was not properly qualified to give it. On this issue, the Court of Appeal concluded:
“If the testimony the Crown adduced from Kristi Jackson in cross-examination consisted in whole or in part of expert opinion on a subject matter beyond the qualifications defence counsel had already established, it was incumbent on the Crown to qualify her as an expert on that subject matter. Crown counsel made no effort to do so before eliciting the opinions he sought, although he did some backfilling after the opinion was given. To the extent that Ms. Jackson’s evidence simply recounted what the Rogers billings revealed, it was not evidence of expert opinion. But to the extent that she offered the opinion about the character of the phone – “drug” vs. “family and friends” – her testimony reflected an opinion that she had not been properly qualified to give.”
Second, the Appeal Court found that the learned Trial Justice erred by erred in instructing the jury to consider a portion of the accused’s evidence with caution or particular care. Specifically on the use of the prior statements.
Third, the Justice had erred in law by failing to instruct the jury correctly about use of the exculpatory evidence provided by eyewitnesses to the robbery and shooting.
All the remaining grounds of the appeal were dismissed by the Court of Appeal. In dismissing those grounds, the court on review held as follows: (i) the trial judge did not err in failing to admit evidence of the accused’s prior out-of-court statements; and (ii) he did not err in refusing to allow the accused to re-open the defence case to respond to a breach of the rule in Browne v. Dunn.
Finally, the court refused to apply the curative provisoin s.686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code. A curative provisois considered under section s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code of Canada, and among other things, it allows an appellate court to consider whether to dimiss an appeal despite the errors of the lower court, if there were no miscarriage(s) of justice or the errors of the lower Court(s) were harmless. In combination of the above noted issues, these errors were not harmless. This is because the evidence against the appellant was not overwhelming. What is more, the main source was the testimony of a Vetrovec witness (see above). Finally, the jury deliberated over five (5) days and twice (2x) reported a deadlock. Based on the foregoing, this was not a case in which the curative proviso can be applied.
If you have been charged with a criminal offence and the matter is likey to proceed to a jury trial, it is important to ensure that sufficient and accurate representations are made on the Court record to that the correct jury charges are addressed.
Contact Mr. J. S. Patel, Barrister for a free initial thirty minute consultation regarding your matter.
Dangerous Driving Under the Criminal Code of Canada
By way of a simple and general summary of legal information, a restatement of the elements of the dangerous driving offence was provided in Regina v. Beatty, 2008 SCC 5, and Roy, 2012 SCC 26, with a significantly greater emphasis placed on the mental element of the offence and criminal blameworthiness. In Beatty, above, while confirming that the offence does not require subjective mens rea, Charron J., on behalf of the majority, provided for the application of the “modified objective test”, per Regina v. Hundal, 1993 CanLII 120 (S.C.C.), so as to ensure that punishment is imposed only upon those with “a blameworthy state of mind”. To that end, Charron J. held that the assessment of whether the accused’s conduct is a “marked departure” from the norm, is not an aspect of the actus reus, but of the mens rea. Accordingly, an evidentiary burden does not shift to the accused from the Crown’s presentation of a case of objectively dangerous driving – the actus reus. A further determination must be made whether the Crown has proven that the conduct involved a marked departure from the standard of care of a reasonable person in the circumstances that is deserving of punishment – the mens rea. Moreover, it remains open to the defence to raise a reasonable doubt that a reasonable person in the position of the accused would not have been aware of the risk posed by the manner of driving or, alternatively, would not have been able to avoid creating the danger.
In Reginav. Laverdure, 2018 ONCA 614(RD), the Ontario Court of Appeal(“OCA”) allowed the accused’s conviction appeal for dangerous driving causing death and ordered a new trial. The main reason for over-turning the conviction was due to the trial judges failure to analyze the fault component of the legal test.
In that case accused struck and killed a pedestrian who had crossed the road after attending a hockey game at a local arena in Pembroke, Ontario. At appeal, the accused argued that the trial judge made unreasonable findings of fact and that he erred in his analysis of the elements of the offence. The test for dangerous driving under the Criminal Code of Canada (the “Code”) is stated in Section 249 of the Code.; and the legal test has been considered in Reginav. Roy, 2012 SCC 26 (CanLII), [2012] 2 S.C.R. 60, at para. 30; R. v. Reynolds, [2013] ONCA 433, at para. 18.
The court upheld the trial judge’s findings of fact with respect to the accused’s driving speed. Evidence from the accident reconstructionist, several witness, as well as forensic evidence supported the conclusion that he was driving “at a high rate of speed on a city street” (at para. 17). The court further upheld the finding that the circumstances as they existed on the road at the time (large groups of pedestrians crossing the road and walking along it) called for drivers to slow down and proceed cautiously.
It was open to the trial judge to find that the actus reus was established; and that he did not reason backwards from the accident (at paras. 20-22). However, while the Trial Judge correctly identified the proper test for the mens reaof the offence, the trial judge failed to identify “how and in what way” the accused’s driving went beyond negligence or carelessness to a marked departure from the standard of care that a reasonable person would show in the same position. This was not a case where the manner of driving was so egregious as to satisfy the fault element without any additional analysis of the evidence. At paragraph 25, the Court of Appeal stated:
Rather, the trial judge appears to have concluded that the act of driving dangerously necessarily constituted what he referred to as a “marked departure from what a reasonable person would expect in the circumstances”. He did not identify the “how and in what way” the appellant’s driving went beyond negligence or carelessness and reached the level of a marked departure from the standard of care that a reasonable person would show in the same position.
If you have been charged with a Criminal Code Offence under Section 249 (i.e. Dangerous Operation of the Motor Vehicle), call Mr. J.S. Patel, Criminal Lawyer, for a free consultation.
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,
The Court of Appeal in Regina v. 
