Denouncing Animal Cruelty

Craig Wright abused six dogs over a period of 17 months, while operating a dog training business in Oshawa. After a trial Mr. Wright was convicted of five charges of animal cruelty and one charge of neglecting an animal.

The trial judge imposed a suspended sentence and gave Mr. Wright 95 days of credit for pre-sentence custody. The trial judge also ordered a section 447.1 prohibition order, prohibiting Mr. Wright from having control or possession of an animal for five years. However, the trial judge refused to prohibit Mr. Wright from residing with an animal. Mr. Wright owned a dog and the trial judge was concerned that a prohibition against living with an animal would punish his wife and children.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and varied Mr. Wright’s sentence: 2014 ONCA 675. In a brief endorsement the Court found the trial judge’s sentence to be “manifestly inadequate,” imposed a nine month jail sentence, and varied the prohibition order to prohibit Mr. Wright from residing with an animal:

Having regard to the gravity of the specific charges, the number of convictions, the respondent’s criminal record which demonstrates both a propensity for violence and a disregard for judicial orders (the appellant was on probation at the time of these offences), the respondents abject failure to accept the criminality of his conduct and the amendments to the Criminal Code in 2008 which signal an added determination by Parliament to deter and punish those who would engage in acts of cruelty to animals, we think the sentence was manifestly inadequate.
In our view, further incarceration was required. We would impose a sentence of nine months. Given the appellant credit for three months presentence, he has six months to serve.
We would vary the 447.1(1)(a) order to include a prohibition against “residing” with any animal or bird. [at paras 1-3]

One of the issues argued in this appeal was the significance of amendments to the Criminal Code that increased the maximum sentence for animal cruelty. Parliament amended the animal cruelty provisions of the Criminal Code in 2008, raising the maximum sentence to imprisonment for five years.

The Court of Appeal recognized that increasing the maximum penalty for animal cruelty offences signalled Parliament’s intent to denounce and deter animal cruelty. The Court considered Parliament’s intent as one of the factors supporting further incarceration in this case.

On this point, the Court of Appeal echoed the recent decision of Justice Alder in R v Helfer, [2014] OJ No 2984 (OCJ):

This type of behaviour must be denounced. When parliament enacted the changes to the Criminal Code provisions respecting animal cruelty, they did so to reflect our society's view towards animal abuse and cruelty. Those who inflict pain on animals, those who are deliberately brutal towards animals will face harsher sentences than in the past, as our society considers this behaviour morally reprehensible and the courts must attempt to denounce and deter this behaviour. [at para 83]

MGM

Big is Back: R v Mack

A few months back, fellow MCL blogger Brian Holowka reviewed the latest pronouncement from the Supreme Court of Canada in R v Hart regarding Mr. Big operations: The Mr Big Operation: The SCC constrains but does not eliminate the practice.

In the Hart decision, the Supreme Court created a new common rule that now governs whether or not the results of a Mr. Big undercover operation should be admitted into evidence: R v Hart, 2014 SCC 52.

Hart was heard with a companion case:  R v Mack, 2014 SCC 58. Mack was convicted at trial of first-degree murder. During the course of an undercover Mr. Big operation, Mack confessed to killing his roommate. He provided the undercover officers with a number of details about the murder, including the reasons he did it and the location of the body’s remains – which Mack had reduced to ashes. The Mr. Big confessions went to the jury for consideration, with an instruction from the trial judge that addressed any concerns about the confession’s reliability and potential for prejudice [para 56].

Mack appealed from conviction to the Alberta Court of Appeal, where his conviction was affirmed: 2012 ABCA 42.

On appeal to the Supreme Court, Mack advanced three arguments. Two of the three were concerned with the evidence gleaned from the Mr. Big operation. Mack argued that:

  1. The trial judge should have excluded the confessions he made to the undercover officers pursuant to s. 24(2) of the Charter; and,
  2. If the confessions were admissible, the charge to the jury was inadequate as to the dangers associated with them [para 2].

With respect to the first argument, the Supreme Court began by recognizing that Mack did not have the benefit of advancing an argument that the confessions should have been excluded pursuant to the new Hart framework. The two-pronged Hart rule dictates that a Mr. Big confession will be excluded where its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value, or where it is the product of an abuse of process [para 32].

The Court applied the Hart framework to Mack’s case. The first prong involves a balancing of the probative value of the confession against any prejudicial effect.

Concerning the confession’s probative value, the Court found:

  • The inducements provided by the officers were modest;
  • The Appellant had well-paying, legitimate work readily available to him;
  • The Appellant was not threatened by the officers;
  • The Appellant was told that he could decline to say anything, an option he initially accepted [para 33].

Further, the Court concluded that there was “an abundance of evidence” that was potentially confirmatory. This included:

  • The testimony of two other witnesses that described the same motive for killing that Mack had told the undercover officers;
  • The fact that the Appellant led the undercover officers to a fire pit where his roommate’s remained lay yet undiscovered; and,
  • The fact that shell casings fired from a gun found in the Appellant’s apartment were found in the same fire pit the Appellant led the officers to.

These factors, taken together, made the confession “highly probative” [para 34].

Concerning the confession’s prejudicial effect, the Court found any prejudice was limited. The Court considered that:

  • Mack did not partake in any scenarios that involved violence;
  • The operation did not reveal prejudicial facts about the Appellant’s past history; and,
  • Mack’s role was limited to assisting with the repossession of vehicles and delivering of packages [para 35].

The Court concluded that “any prejudicial effect arising from the Mr. Big confessions is easily outweighed by their probative value” [para 35]. Under the first prong of the Hart test, the confessions would have been admitted.

The second prong of the Hart framework involves determining whether the police officers conducting the Mr. Big operation engaged in any improper conduct, that could ground an application for abuse of process [para 36]. Here, the Supreme Court found that:

  • Mack was not presented with overwhelming inducements;
  • Mack had legitimate prospects for work, that would have paid even more than what the undercover officers were offering;
  • The officers did not threaten Mack with violence if he didn’t confess ; and,
  • The officers made it explicitly clear that Mack did not have to speak with them [para 36].

The Supreme Court found that at most, the officers created “an air of intimidation” by referring to violent acts committed by members of the fictional organization, but this did not mean that Mack was coerced into confessing [para 36].

Under the second prong of the Hart test, the confessions would also have been admitted.

Although the Court ultimately dismissed Mack’s first ground of appeal for the exclusion of evidence based on s. 24(2) of the Charter, the Court also concluded that the confessions would “clearly be admissible under [the Hart] framework” [para 32]. As such, Mack’s first argument was dismissed.

With respect to the second argument, the Court reiterated that there are two major evidentiary concerns arising out of Mr. Big operations: the reliability of such confessions, and the bad character evidence that invariably accompanies them [para 43].

The Court found that while the Hart rule is intended to respond to these concerns, it does not purport to erase them entirely. It falls to the trial judge to adequately, but not perfectly, instruct the jury as to how to approach these confessions in reaching a verdict [paras 44, 48].

The approach taken by the British Columbia Court of Appeal in both R v Terrico, 2005 BCCA 361 and R v Fry, 2011 BCCA 381, was endorsed by the Supreme Court. Jury instructions that pertain to Mr. Big operations should be subject to a contextual, case-by-case review. There is no “magical incantation” that must be read to juries in all Mr. Big cases; the nature and extent of instruction will vary from case to case [para 49].

The Court did offer some additional guidance, but no prescriptive formula, for trial judges to consider when instructing a jury. Juries should be informed that the reliability of such a confession is a question for them to answer, and will necessarily be impacted by both the circumstances in which the confession was made and the details contained in the confession itself [para 52].

As articulated in Hart, the trial judge should alert the jury to:

  • The length of the operation;
  • The number of interactions;
  • The nature of the relationship established;
  • The nature and extent of inducements offered;
  • The presence of any threats;
  • The conduct of the interrogation itself; and,
  • The personality of the accused [para 52, citing Hart at para 102].

Further, the trial judge should discuss that the confession itself may contain markers of reliability or unreliability. Juries should consider whether the confession led to the discovery of additional evidence, whether it identified any elements of the crime not publicly known, or whether it described mundane details of the crime the accused would likely not have known had he not committed it [para 53, citing Hart @ para 105).

Finally, the Supreme Court emphasized that the jury should be reminded that such a confession is admitted for the limited purpose of providing context for the confession, and cannot rely on the confession to determine whether the accused is guilty. The jury should also be reminded of the state’s role in simulating and encouraging criminal activity [para 55].

On the second ground of appeal advanced by Mack concerning Mr. Big operations, the Court found that trial judge’s instructions were adequate and revealed no error [para 58]. As such, Mack’s argument was again dismissed.

Comment

In reviewing the Hart decision for MCL, Mr. Holowka properly highlighted that Mr. Big operations are often spawned due to a dearth of other evidence, the results of which may now be difficult to admit if corroborative evidence is lacking. However, the Mack decision places important emphasis on the fact that it is not to be presumed that prejudice, coercion, or abusive tactics are necessarily present in all Mr. Big operations. Courts must still be alive to the significantly probative evidence that this investigative technique can generate. Although Hart may have left the Mr. Big technique alive, but only barely; Mack offers vital resuscitation.

SS

Missing Magic Incantations aren't Fatal

EH was convicted of sexual offences perpetrated against a 4yr old.  Her video and audio recorded statement to police was tendered at trial pursuant to section 715.1 of the Code. She also testified via closed circuit television in accordance with section 486.2 of the Code.

The evidence revealed that on several occasions while sitting on a couch watching television EH took the child’s hand and placed it on his penis. EH would then remove her hand and tell the child that he loved her.

At trial, EH testified that on a single occasion, out of the blue, the child put her hand down his shorts and touched his penis; at the time he was not wearing underwear.  EH said this caused him to panic- he ran upstairs put on pants, a belt and a shirt.

The jury convicted EH and he appealed: 2014 ONCA 622. One of the grounds of appeal EH argued was that although the trial judge had clearly stated in the pre-charge conference that a WD instruction would be given to the jury, the final charge did not include such an instruction or the functional equivalent thereof.

The Court of Appeal held that in these circumstances their task was “to determine whether the final instructions, viewed as a whole, would have left the jury under any misapprehension about the applicable burden and standard of proof” @para 6. The Court dismissed the appeal for four compelling reasons.

First, the Court noted “that the W.D. formula is not some magic incantation, omission of which is fatal” @para 9. What matters is whether the jury understood that that at the end of the day they had to simply chose between two competition versions of events. The Court found that instructions in substance did not leave the jury with an erroneous view.

Second, the Court held that the instructions on the core criminal law concepts of the presumption of innocence, the burden of proof and the standard of proof were all entirely complete and correct.

Third, the Court importantly noted that the charge does not take place in isolation. It is preceded by the closing addresses of counsel. Those addresses are not substitutes for a deficient charge but they “may fill some gaps left in the charge” @para 11.  In this case the Court noted that “the closing addresses of both counsel tracked the W.D. framework. Nothing in the charge contradicted or qualified what counsel said” @para 11.

Lastly and perhaps not surprisingly the Court relied on the fact that EH made no objection to the charge at trial.

Although WD has been the subject of much judicial scrutiny, the decision in EH is not at all surprising when one considers the circumstances of the seminal decision itself. In WD the trial judge in fact erroneously instructed the jury that they were engaged in a credibility contest, yet the conviction was upheld. In EH the Court of Appeal clearly found the functional equivalent of a proper WD instruction even in the absence of the magic credibility incantation. 

LT

Guns, Drugs and Willful Blindness

Alma McLeod didn’t take the average cross-border trip to visit the United States. Instead, she would transport large quantities of drugs out of Canada, using a rental car, and in exchange for those drugs, return back with firearms: two 9 mm Glock semi-automatic pistols, a Hi-Point .45 calibre semi-automatic pistol, and a .40 calibre semi-automatic pistol, for example.

After her last trip, McLeod got caught. At her trial, she testified that she thought she was transporting money back and forth, for a legitimate business purpose. She also claimed that she never saw what her accomplices were loading or unloading into the trunks of her various rental cars.

McLeod was convicted or six firearm offences, and one drug offence. She appealed both from conviction and sentence: 2014 ONCA 647.

Concerning her conviction, McLeod advanced two arguments.

First, she argued that the jury should not have been instructed as to wilful blindness. She argued there was no evidentiary foundation for the instruction [para 2].

Second, she argued that the Crown was improperly allowed to cross-examine her on her knowledge of guns in the Toronto community, stating it was an irrelevant and prejudicial line of questioning [para 11].

The Court of Appeal dismissed both.

First, in order to establish wilful blindness, there must be evidence of actual suspicion on the part of the accused: R v Briscoe, 2010 SCC 13.

The Court of Appeal concluded that the evidence at trial included facts from which an inference of actual suspicion could be drawn. These included:

  • The location where McLeod would meet her accomplices – strip malls, parking lots and service stations, late at night.
  • McLeod never loaded the car herself.
  • McLeod would provide her rental car to a near stranger to take to a secret location, so that the car could be loaded and unloaded.

The trial judge’s instruction on wilful blindness was error-free. He was correct to put the instruction to the jury [paras 7, 10].

Second, with respect to cross-examination, the Court of Appeal found the trial judge interjected as it became apparent that the Crown intended to ask McLeod about the notorious Boxing Day shooting of Jane Creba. At this point, the trial judge instructed the jury to disregard that particular question, and allowed the Crown to proceed with a “general line of questioning about general awareness of gun violence or drug crime in Toronto.” Any reference to a specific “community” was precluded [para 13].

The Crown was properly permitted to ask McLeod about her knowledge of:

  • Gun violence in Toronto in 2005,
  • Guns coming into Canada from the US, and
  • The relationship between guns and drugs.

The Court of Appeal found that this line of questioning was relevant to the issue of actual suspicion that McLeod was transporting guns, and not money, back into Canada [paras 14-15].

For these reasons, McLeod’s appeal from conviction was dismissed.

The seven year sentence McLeod received was subject to a generous two-for-one credit for pre-trial custody, and one-quarter-to-one credit for house arrest bail conditions. The remaining sentence was 5 years and 9 months. The Court of Appeal concluded this was not outside the range of appropriate sentences for importing firearms and exporting a controlled substance: para 19.

As such, McLeod’s appeal from sentence was also dismissed.

SS

When is a "firearm" not a "weapon"?

On November 5, 2014 the Supreme Court will hear argument in the matter of R v Dunn, 2013 ONCA 539.  The appeal will resolve the age-old question (or at least a burning one in Ontario) – when is a “firearm” not a “weapon”?

Christopher Dunn was being watched by some investigators on behalf of the Workplace Safety Insurance Board. The investigators noted that Dunn met with another man; during that meeting Dunn pulled out, what appeared to be, a pistol from his jacket and seemed to be pointing it at the other man. The pistol was put away and Dunn left. The investigators contacted the police and alerted them to what he had seen.

The police later attended at Dunn’s trailer and ultimately seized what turned out to be a Crosman Pro77 airgun that fires .177 calibre spherical BBs propelled by means of compressed air from a canister. The airgun was determined to be functional and was loaded with a partly used CO2 cartridge; there was no ammunition in the magazine. 

A firearms examiner who gave expert evidence agreed in cross-examination that this type of airgun can be purchased without the purchaser’s having to produce any documentation, as long as the muzzle velocity does not exceed 500 feet per second (“ft./s.”). The respondent’s airgun had an average velocity of 261.41 ft./s.
The expert gave evidence about a scientific study done to determine the velocity needed for a BB to penetrate the human eye – the so-called pig’s eye study, which used pig’s eyes because of their similar size and composition to the human eye. According to the study’s findings, any shot exceeding 214 ft./s. was capable of causing serious injury. A BB shot travelling at this speed would penetrate the eye of a 10-month old pig some of the time. A BB travelling at 246 ft./s. would penetrate the eye 50 percent of the time. The respondent’s airgun thus exceeded both thresholds.
The expert further testified that this particular airgun is built to closely resemble a Steyr MA1 9mm pistol, a conventional semi-automatic handgun. [@7-9]

Dunn was charged with various offences including handling a firearm (s 86), pointing a firearm (s 87), carrying a weapon for dangerous purpose (s 88) and carrying concealed weapon (s 90). 

In considering those charges the trial judge noted that the offence of pointing a firearm “required proof that the airgun in question is a firearm, and that the other three counts required proof that the airgun was either a firearm or a replica firearm”. Citing McManus, 2006 CanLII 26568 (ONCA) the trial judge held that if a the firearm “is not a ‘real powder fired bullet shooting gun’, the Crown must prove that it is a weapon, as defined in s. 2 of the Criminal Code, before any finding could be made that it is a firearm” [@11]. On the facts the trial judge “held that the Crown had failed to prove that the airgun was used or intended to for use in any of the ways specified in s. 2. It was therefore not a weapon, and could not be a firearm” [@13]. The Crown appealed.

On appeal the Crown sought to argue that McManus, was wrongly decided and contrary to binding authority, namely Felawka, 1993 CanLII 36 (SCC). The Court of Appeal agreed to sit five members in order to consider that issue.

In considering the appeal the court noted that the “appeal turns on the proper interpretation of the terms ‘firearm’ and ‘weapon’ in the Criminal Code. There is only one issue in this appeal: must an object (to use a neutral word) that falls within the definition of ‘firearm’ in s. 2 also meet the definition for ‘weapon’ in the same section. The interpretation issue arises from the fact that each definition refers to the other” [@14]. This is evident from a review of the definition of weapon in the Code which states that it is any thing used, designed to be used or intended for use (a) in causing death or injury to any person, or (b) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating any person – and without restricting the generality of the foregoing includes a firearm.

After reviewing Felawka and McManus the court concluded that the Crown need not prove that an object which is a firearm must also fall within paragraph (a) or (b) of the definition of weapon. To the extent that McManus held otherwise it was wrongly decided.

Not only was this conclusion reached on the basis of the binding decision in Felawka but also on the basis of statutory interpretation.

To conclude, in my view, there is no ambiguity in the definition of firearm in s. 2 when regard is had to the legislative history and the context and scheme of the legislation. Barrelled objects that meet the definition of firearm in s. 2 need not also meet the definition in para. (a) or (b) of weapon to be deemed to be firearms and hence weapons for the various weapons offences in the Code, such as the offences charged against the respondent in this case. [@66].

The Supreme Court is now set to consider the issue. The Court of Appeal’s ruling is compelling. Not only did it conclude that McManus conflicted with Felawka but based on a thorough statutory interpretation analysis, the court came to the same conclusion. But, the courts are not Dunn yet considering this issue…stay tuned.

DGM

Justification for Delaying section 10 Rights?

Mohammad Mian was driving a grey Chevrolet Malibu. He was noted by police surveillance to be driving that car as part of an investigation into a number of homicides and attempted homicides in Edmonton. This investigation include wires. The principal target was Robin Chelmick. Through the wires the police learned that a drug transaction was going to take place and Chelmick was to be the middle man. Ultimately the police observed three separate meetings between Chelmick and the driver of the Malibu. After the third meeting one of the investigating officers contacted two other police officers, not connected with the homicide investigation; the detective met with those officers and recruited them to participate in the investigation; in particular, they were recruited to conduct a traffic stop of the Malibu when the investigative team alerted them. The officers were instructed to "make a routine traffic stop of the Malibu...they were to use every effort to find appropriate grounds to search the Malibu without having to rely on the information provided...so that the ongoing homicide investigation would not be compromised" [@8]. 

That traffic stop was eventually made. The officers approached Mian, spoke briefly then removed him from the vehicle. He had a cell phone in his hand. A pat-down search revealed $2,710 in cash. Mian was placed in the police cruiser and the officers conducted a search of the Malibu; during that search they located a large amount of cocaine and a smaller baggie of cocaine, additional cash and another cell phone.

22 minutes passed between the time when the officers pulled Mian over and when he was advised of the reason for his arrest and stop; a further 2 to 5 minutes passed before he was advised of his right to counsel.

At trial Mian successfully argued that this conduct violated his rights under section 10(a) and (b). The matter was appealed and eventually considered by the Supreme Court: 2014 SCC 54. 

On appeal the Crown argued, inter alia, that while there was a delay in providing the section 10 rights, the delay was justified on the basis of the need to protect the integrity of the ongoing investigation. Without rejecting the possibility that such delay may be permissible, the Court held that the factual findings in this case (by the trial judge) did not support the argument: 

The Crown concedes that to accept this argument would constitute an extension of the circumstances in which s. 10 rights may be suspended. As the Crown in this case recognizes, “[n]one of the jurisprudence has considered the precise situation presented here” (R.F., at para. 81).  I accept that the jurisprudence does recognize that compliance with the s. 10(b) informational rights may be suspended in exceptional circumstances (see R. v. Manninen,1987 CanLII 67 (SCC), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1233, at p. 1244; and R. v. Strachan, 1988 CanLII 25 (SCC), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 980, at pp. 998-99). However, it is not necessary to decide in this case whether the need to protect the integrity of a separate, ongoing investigation is an exceptional circumstance which may justify the suspension of the s. 10(b) rights. Nor is it necessary to determine whether exceptional circumstances can delay the implementation of s. 10(a) rights. Even if they could, exceptional circumstances do not arise on the facts as found by the trial judge in this case [@74].

As noted by the Court, the trial judge did not find there was sufficient evidence to support the assertion that "immediate compliance with s. 10 of the Charter would have compromised the broader investigation" [@75].

In concluding on the section 10 issue and rejecting the Crown's position on that point, the Court offered the following comments which reveal that while the factual basis was not present, the legal position may not be unfounded:

Crown appeals from acquittals are restricted to questions of law. Findings of fact can only be undermined in limited situations, not applicable in this case, where the trial judge’s alleged shortcomings in assessing the evidence give rise to an error of law (See Criminal Code, s. 676(1)(a); and R. v. J.M.H., 2011 SCC 45 (CanLII), 2011 SCC 45, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 197, at paras. 24-39, perCromwell J.). [@75].

With respect to the 24(2) issue the Court again noted the narrow approach in a Crown appeal from acquittal "which limits the Crown’s challenge to the decision of the trial judge to questions of law".

Turning to the seriousness of the breach the Court held that in this case, the 22 minute delay, while not necessarily lengthy, was serious as during that time the police questioned Mian and had, on the findings of fact by the trial judge, no justifiable reason for delaying 10(a) or (b). The Court noted however:

This does not mean that the seriousness of a delay will never be mitigated by extenuating circumstances. Indeed, in an appropriate case, where a Charter breach has been found, a delay of more than 22 minutes may well be justified. In this case, however, these arguments are impermissible attempts to undermine the factual findings of the trial judge. [@81].

In concluding its review of the 24(2) analysis and dismissing the Crown appeal, the Court again eluded to the narrow approach:

However, the Grant test is a flexible and imprecise balancing exercise (see Grant, at paras. 85-86). The question is whether the trial judge considered the proper factors. In this case, the trial judge did exactly that. The trial judge held that the lack of a causal connection between the breach and the evidence, the minimal impact of the breach on Mr. Mian’s privacy rights, the reliability of the evidence, and the seriousness of the offence favoured admission of the evidence. He also held that the egregious and deliberate state conduct, the lack of a valid reason for the Charter breach, and the misleading state conduct favoured exclusion of the evidence. On balance, the judge concluded that society’s interest in the adjudication of the case on its merits was outweighed by the wilful and flagrant state conduct and the attempts to mislead the court. This conclusion was not unreasonable. [@88].

While the findings of fact in Mian did not support the position that there may be other justifiable reasons for delaying section 10 rights, the Court leaves open the possibility that there may be and if so, what the precise scope and application of them will be. Stay tuned.

DGM

Only Time will Tell: Milani and the 11(b) Clock

April 20, 1985. EN is asleep in her home during the early morning hours. She awakes to find a masked assailant, armed with a knife, shining a flashlight into her eyes. The assailant attacks, tying her up and raping her. Then he takes $21 from her purse and leaves.  

September 18, 1985. CS hears a noise in her home. She arms herself with a handgun, and encounters an intruder in the hallway. His face is covered; he is armed with a knife. He threatens her. CS flees the house.

September 9, 1986. JB is asleep during the early morning hours. She awakes to the sound of running water. She encounters a masked assailant. The assailant ties her up and rapes her. He gets away.

July 11, 1987. JB encounters a masked intruder in her home for the second time. She is blindfolded and raped. The intruder assures her that he won’t “bind her feet like the last time.” He takes $67 from her purse before leaving.

December 3, 1987. SR and her co-worker, AC, return to SR’s home after midnight. A masked intruder is armed with a handgun. The women are bound, blindfolded, and separated. He rapes SR at gun point. He demands oral sex from AC, and SR tries to escape. He catches SR, ties her up and blindfolds her again, and strangles her. Before leaving, the intruder takes money from both of their purses.

December 22, 1987. Donald Milani is arrested and charged in connection with this string of violent, sexual assault home invasions. The Crown advanced a similar fact application. The preliminary inquiry judge found there was insufficient evidence to warrant a committal to trial, based on similar facts: [2012 ONSC 6892, para 26].

Although the preliminary inquiry judge found that the same person was responsible for the attacks on EN, JB, SR and AC, he was not satisfied that the evidence adequately identified Milani. At the time, DNA technology was not advanced enough to connect Milani to the semen and saliva that was seized at the crime scenes. He was discharged on all counts, except for one. On that count, Milani was acquitted at trial.

Time passed, but science improved. In 2008 and 2009, police resubmitted samples of the semen and saliva seized from the crime scenes to the Centre of Forensic Sciences (CFS). Due to advancements in technology, CFS was able to conclude that the DNA seized from the crime scenes matched that of Donald Milani. The probability of a randomly selected, unrelated individual sharing the same DNA profile of Milani was one in 18.8 billion. The Crown’s evidence was no longer circumstantial. It was overwhelming.

Based on this new evidence, nearly 25 years later, the Crown preferred an indictment against Milani. On August 17, 2010, he was arrested and charged with 19 counts relating to the violent sexual attacks on EN, JB, SR and AC. His trial was scheduled for early 2013. Prior to that trial Milani proceeded to bring an application for a stay of proceedings pursuant to s. 11(b) and s. 7 of the Charter: 

Piercem J, of the Ontario Superior Court, concluded that Milani’s right to be tried within a reasonable time, pursuant to s. 11(b), had indeed been infringed. Consequently, she did not address the s. 7 arguments advanced. A stay was granted: [2012 ONSC 6892].

The Crown disagreed with Piercem J’s finding. The matter proceeded on appeal: 2014 ONCA 536.

At the Court of Appeal, Milani argued that for the purposes of s. 11(b), the “constitutional clock” began to run when he was discharged from the preliminary inquiry in November 1989, and subsequently stopped ticking once the new indictment was preferred in July 2010. Milani was unaware during the intervening time that there was any ongoing investigation into his involvement in the sexual assaults [paras 7, 10].

Milani did not contend that the entire “gap” period between 1989 and 2010 constituted unreasonable delay. He submitted that the period of time between 1987 and 1995 was inherent delay, necessary to permit the advancement of DNA science. However, he argued that the subsequent 15 years of delay was solely attributable to the Crown, arising from such conduct as the police failing to submit items for testing at earlier dates, and the delay associated with obtaining a preferred indictment [para 11].

Although Milani acknowledged no actual prejudice resulted, he argued that prejudice should be inferred, as the delay far exceeded the guideline articulated in R v Morin [[1992] 1 SCR 771].

The Crown’s position on appeal was that this case should be classified as a cold case. The Crown argued that the court should not, through the vehicle of a Charter application, micromanage police investigations. The Crown submitted that the time accruing before the indictment was preferred should be considered pre-charge delay, and as such, that because Milani was not “a person charged with an offence” during that time, the s. 11(b) clock was not running [para 13].

The Court of Appeal agreed with the Crown. Van Rensburg JA, writing for the court, concluded that the trial judge erred in relying on the 1983 decision R v Antoine [(1983), 5 CCC (3d) 97] to conclude that the “gap” period in question should be included in the s. 11(b) analysis. The court found that a close examination of the more recent Supreme Court decisions, R v Kalanj [[1989 1 SCR 1594] and R v Potvin [[1993] SCJ No 63], properly supported the conclusion that the period in question is pre-charge delay. Given that s. 11(b) is designed to protect only against the harms that result from post-charge delay – not pre-charge or appellate delay – Milani’s rights pursuant to s. 11(b) were not engaged [para 30].

The Court of Appeal revisited the decision of Re Garton and Whelan [(1984), 47 OR (2d) 672 (HC)], referenced in Antoine and relied upon by Piercem J in her reasons. The court noted three important distinguishing factors present in that case, notably absent in the case at bar:

First, the accused was aware in Garton and Whelan throughout the intervening period in question about the ongoing efforts to have him prosecuted. Milani had no such knowledge. Some knowledge, on the part of the accused, that an active investigation is underway is required before the s. 11(b) clock will run, in the absence of active charges: [paras 38-39].
Second, there was no change in the evidence against the accused in Garton and Whelan. In Milani’s case, strong new evidence inculpating him as the assailant was unearthed as a result of scientific progress: [para 38].
Third, real prejudice would be suffered by the accused in that case should a trial have been heard after the delay, given the fading memories of witnesses. It was conceded by Milani that no real prejudice had incurred, only that there was a possibility of prejudice: [paras 12, 39, 53].

The Court points out that these distinctions make it clear that Garton and Whelan and Antoine can be interpreted in a way that do not support the arguments advanced by Milani. However, the Court actually went further to state that even if those cases stood for broader propositions that would indeed support Milani’s position, any such propositions have been overtaken by newer jurisprudence: [para 40].

The Court then moved to revisiting the Supreme Court’s reasoning in R v Kalanj and R v Potvin. In Kalanj, the court concluded that extending s. 11(b) to the pre-charge period would be unworkable. It was found that Courts are not equipped to fix time limits for investigations, as circumstances vary differently from case to case, and an investigation must, by its very nature, be confidential [para 42].

In R v Potvin, the Supreme Court concluded that appellate delay does not trigger the ticking of the s. 11(b) clock. The Court found that the focus of protection extends to the interests of a person who has been charged, and is subject to the processes of the court. The relevant period of time for an s. 11(b) analysis is when there is a “proceeding on foot.”  Active charges must be outstanding against the person. The anticipation of charges is not enough: [para 46].

Based on the reasons articulated in Kalanj and Potvin, the Court of Appeal endorsed the Crown’s position that the ambit of s. 11(b) does not extend on a societal level to the speedy investigation of crime. The only caveat are instances where unilateral state action may control whether or not charges are withdrawn or re-laid (such as when a formal charge has been withdrawn, and there is an intention of laying a new one). In such instances, it makes sense to consider the entire period of time in the s. 11(b) analysis. If the person is no longer actively charged, they must remain subject to the very real prospect of new charges [para 48-49] [emphasis added].

For these reasons, the Crown's appeal was allowed. The matter was referred back to the trial judge [para 54].

While it is clear from this case that the Court recognizes the importance of allowing law enforcement to conduct investigations in timeframes that are appropriate to each case (particularly in light of scientific improvements), the significance of the 25 year timespan in Milani’s case still remains undetermined. Inevitably, Milani will advance a s. 7 argument at trial, arguing that the significant passage of time has impacted both his right to make full answer and defence, and trial fairness. So while the 11(b) clock was not ticking, s. 7 has not yet been addressed. Ultimately, only time will tell if the case against Milani will proceed to be tried on its merits.

SS

Court Order to Fix a Mistake

When a sex offender is convicted of two or more sexual offences at the same time they are required by law to be registered is accordance with the Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) for a period of life. Although this is clearly written in s490.013 of the Code and there is no discretion for the Court to do anything other than impose the order for less than the prescribed period, judges and counsel have been getting the duration of the orders just plain wrong. The question becomes what to do when someone notices the error. Is the sentencing judge functus? Does a correction to the order require an appeal?  That was precisely the issue before Ontario Superior Court Justice Goldstein in Alvaranga-Alas, 2014 ONSC 4725 (SC).

Alvaranga-Alas was convicted of two counts of sexual assault. At the sentencing hearing the crown submitted that a 10 year SOIRA order was appropriate. The defence did not demur and Justice Rutherford imposed the 10 year order. Shortly thereafter the Crown discovered that an error had been made. In fact, by operation of s.490.013(2.1) the SOIRA order was, without any discretion, to be made for a period of life.

The Crown applied to the sentencing judge to correct the erroneous order. Justice Rutherford declined to correct the order and determined instead that she was functus. She held that the proper forum for the application to correct the order was to an appellate court.

Justice Goldstein sitting as a summary conviction appeal court first noted that:

There is conflicting authority on both points. One line of authority in this Court holds that a sentencing judge has the inherent authority to correct a SOIRA order after it is made: see R. v. D.M., 2014 ONSC 141 (SC). A line of authority in the Ontario Court of Justice holds that a sentencing judge does not: R. v. J.E. 2013 ONCJ 247 (CJ). The problem is that there is no clear route of appeal from the decision of the Ontario Court of Justice sitting as a summary conviction court in relation to a SOIRA order. [citations not original] @para 8.

Justice Goldstein however found it difficult to imagine that either the sentencing judge or an appellate court for a summary conviction matter lacked the power to correct an erroneous error. If that were the case it is not hard to see that:

[a]n obvious injustice could result: an offender might be erroneously subjected to a lifetime SOIRA order when, in fact, the offence called only for a 10-year order. No rule of statutory interpretation requires a court to find that Parliament created a regime where injustice could be done but not undone. @para 9

Section 490.012(4) of the Code permits a 90 day period following the imposition of sentence that would allow a court that does not “consider the matter” when it imposes sentence. Justice Goldstein rejected the argument that this provision would allow for the correction of an erroneous SOIRA order and that its application was limited to circumstances where the Court failed to consider the issue at all. It does not apply, according to Justice Goldstein where the Court considers the issue but gets it wrong.

Instead Justice Goldstein held that courts have an inherent jurisdiction to correct an erroneous SOIRA order because the order is automatic and not at all discretionary. Unlike the situation where a judge turns their mind to and crafts an illegal sentence having considered other sentencing options, (for example the illegal jail, fine and probation combination) in the case of a SOIRA order “only one outcome is possible” @para 69. Moreover, “no judge could possibly have a manifest intention to make an incorrect calculation” @para 69.

Justice Goldstein further found support for the inherent jurisdiction view in the fact that there is a lack of a clear route of appeal in summary conviction matters to correct a SOIRA order.

Justice Goldstein concluded that the ordering judge had the jurisdiction to correct the order and had erred by declining to do so. This failure of jurisdiction was best remedied by remitting the matter to the ordering judge with a writ of mandamus compelling Justice Rutherford to exercise her jurisdiction pursuant s.490.012 of the Code.

LT 

Porn & Prejudice

Stillwell was charged with distributing, possessing and accessing child porn. A little more than 26 months elapsed between the date the information was sworn against Stillwell and the last day scheduled for his trial. Stillwell brought an application for a stay of proceedings on the basis that his right to a trial without unreasonable delay had been violated.

The trial judge concluded that 12.5 months of delay was attributable to the Crown (5.5 months crown and 7 months institutional) and that this exceeded the 8-10 month guideline established in Morin, 1992 CanLII 89 (SCC). The 5.5 months attributed to the Crown were dedicated to the analysis of Stillwell’s computer and the preparation of the report of that analysis. The trial judge entered a stay of proceedings.

The Crown successfully appealed: Stillwell, 2014 ONCA 563.  The Crown argued that first, given the shear volume of files on Stillwell’s computer additional time was required for the investigator to review and categorize the images. Second, the Crown argued that the trial judge erred in her assessment of the prejudice to Stillwell.

The trial judge commented on the task required of police in preparing a categorization report:

While I am sympathetic to the police and the difficult task they have to perform, it is clear that the resources assigned to the completion of this analysis were woefully inadequate, particularly when the main investigator became unavailable.  It is well settled that decisions on the part of the state concerning the allocation of its resources cannot be used to justify the abrogation of the rights of an accused person. @para 14.

The Court of Appeal accepted that:

(…) child pornography investigations are unique in that the storage capabilities of electronic devices may result in huge universes of information that can only be analyzed after charges have been laid. I also recognize that officers categorizing these types of images need frequent breaks due to the emotional toll associated with the work. @para 39

However the Court rejected the Crown’s argument that the 5.5 months attributed to the Crown for the preparation of the report was neutral. The Court held that allocating it as the trial judge did was appropriate in the circumstances.

The Court of Appeal however did not agree with the trial judge’s conclusion that such an allocation of time periods should result in a stay of these proceedings. The prejudice to the accused was minimal and “his ability to make full answer and defence was unaffected by the delay” [@para 23]. The Court agreed with the trial judge:  

(…) that the Crown delay in disclosing the final report was clearly disproportionate to the time spent preparing it.  In my view, however, this fact should not overwhelm the analysis.  On the trial judge’s own findings, the delay in disclosing the final report accounted for only five and a half months of the total 26 month period.  The bulk of the time was taken up by neutral intake time (nine months), defence delay (five and a half months) and reasonable institutional delay (seven months).  When the five and a half months of unreasonable Crown delay is added to the institutional delay, the total is 12.5 months – beyond the Morin guideline, but not egregiously so.  When this delay is balanced against the minimal prejudice the respondent experienced and the grave seriousness of the charges against him, the delay, while not ideal, was not unreasonable. [emphasis added]

With respect to the gravity of child pornography offences the Court referenced the recent SCC decision in Spencer, 2014 SCC 43 (check out blog on this by Dallas Mack “The Privacy of Anonymity”) as follows:

Society has both a strong interest in the adjudication of the case and also in ensuring that the justice system remains above reproach in its treatment of those charged with serious offences.  If the evidence is excluded, the Crown will effectively have no case.  The impugned evidence (the electronic files containing child pornography) is reliable and was admitted by the defence to constitute child pornography. Society undoubtedly has an interest in seeing a full and fair trial based on reliable evidence, and all the more so for a crime which implicates the safety of children. [Emphasis added.] @para 63.

Stillwell serves as a significant guide to the balancing required between prejudice to the accused and the mighty public interest in prosecuting child pornography offences. Minimal prejudice which does not impact on the accused’s right to make full answer and defence must not result in a stay. It also marks an important, although in this particular case not significant, acknowledgement of the massive task facing investigators as they process ‘universes of information’ found on computers.

LT

684: Common Sense and Constitutional

PC was charged with manslaughter. During his trial, he was assisted by two legal-aid lawyers and an interpreter. He was convicted. PC filed notice that he would appeal his conviction, but was not granted additional legal aid on the grounds that his appeal lacked merit. He then brought a motion to have counsel appointed for him to facilitate his appeal, pursuant to s. 684(1) of the Criminal Code. The Crown argued such an appointment would not be “desirable in the interests of justice” because PC did not demonstrate his appeal possessed arguable merit. The motions judge dismissed PC’s application. PC responded by challenging the constitutionality of s. 684: 2014 ONCA 577.

PC argued that because persons who can afford to hire counsel can do so whether or not their appeal has merit, indignant accused persons should have the same right under s. 7, s. 10(b), s. 11 and s.15 of the Charter [para 3].

The Court of Appeal rejected PC’s Charter arguments for two reasons:

First, the Court found the Charter does not require an automatic right to publicly funded counsel for appellate purposes, and that s. 684 is an ameliorative program that falls within s. 15(2) of the Charter. PC’s challenge on the basis of s.15 was dismissed [para 11-14].

Second, the court found that ss. 7, s. 10(b) and s. 11 work in tandem to ensure an accused person is always treated fairly, from the point of arrest or detention through to the end of an adjudicative process [paras 16-19]. This includes the appeals process.

In the context of a trial, fairness will sometimes require that counsel be appointed where provincial legal aid has been denied: R v Rowbotham, 25 OAC 321 [para 20].

In the context of an appeal, the Court concluded that if the following criterion is satisfied, fairness will be ensured:

  1. The accused has a full and fair opportunity to exercise any right of appeal, and
  2. The accused is able to effectively present their appeal.

Concerning the first criteria, the court noted that in exceptional circumstances, counsel may need to be appointed to assist an accused in ascertaining whether or not grounds for an appeal exist. A motions judge can appoint counsel for this limited purpose [para 27].

Concerning the second criteria, once a ground of an appeal has been ascertained, for the purposes of effectively presenting the appeal, the appeal must be arguable. The court found that it is common sense to conclude that “appeals which are void of merit will not be helped by the appointment of counsel”: R v Bernardo, 105 OAC 244 [para 29]. An aspect of “rational objectivity” must be imported in order to balance the interests of the accused and the state. Requiring an accused to demonstrate that an arguable appeal exists does not treat the accused unfairly [para 30].  

After articulating these criteria, the Court then highlighted four additional aspects of s. 684 that demonstrate why it withstands constitutional scrutiny:

First, the fact that legal aid has been refused is not determinative of whether or not the “interests of justice” require counsel to be appointed [para 31].

Second, the cost of assigning counsel cannot influence a Court’s determination under s. 684, because these costs are to be accepted as “the price of the proper administration of justice”: Bernardo, supra [para 31].

Third, an indignant accused almost always has the assistance of duty counsel or legal aid to argue a s. 684 motion. Here, the Court went further and commented that this assistance may also include the preparation of an affidavit, which outlines whether an accused can meaningfully exercise his right of appeal, and effectively present it, with reference to relevant considerations such as:

  • the accused’s means,
  • the seriousness of the charge of which the accused was convicted,
  • the sentence received,
  • age,
  • youthfulness,
  • education,
  • ability to speak, understand and write English or French,
  • disability,
  • familiarity or lack thereof with the criminal justice system,
  • the length of the trial,
  • the complexity of the appeal, and
  • the legal principles engaged and the appellants ability or lack theory to effectively relate them to the facts of the case [paras 33-34].

Fourth, a decision on a motion pursuant to s. 684 is not a final one. An accused may seek a panel review of a refusal, or renew an application with the benefit of an expanded record following trial [para 35].

For these reasons, PC’s challenge on the basis of ss. 7, 10(b) and 11 was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal upheld s. 684 of the Criminal Code as constitutional. However, the Court did note that a renewed application in PC’s case could succeed on the basis of the newly expanded record (which included a full consideration of his age at the time of conviction, the seriousness of the crime, his inability to communicate in English except through an interpreter, and his lack of familiarly with the legal system and its principles) [para 35].

SS