Settled Law

Lam was convicted of driving with an illegal blood alcohol concentration [BAC] – he was over 80. This was his second trial.  The Crown sought to invoke the presumption of identity and attempted to file the certificate of analysis as evidence of Lam’s BAC at the time of driving. The defence opposed the filing of the certificate and argued that the failure of the police to have the approved instrument inspected in accordance with the Alcohol Test Committee’s [ATC] recommendations was fatal to the Crown’s case.

The trial judge accepted this argument and found that the police failure to send the Approved Instrument for annual inspection for 13 months constituted evidence which tended to show that the instrument was operated improperly. The accused was acquitted. The Crown appealed.

The Summary Conviction Appeal [SCA] judge held that the trial judge erred and ordered a new trial. In particular, the SCA found that:

elevating the recommendations of the Alcohol Test Committee that approved instruments be inspected annually to a condition precedent for proper operation of the instrument. This error led the trial judge to conclude that the presumption of identity in s258(1)(c) was not engaged and thus could not be invoked to establish the application’s blood alcohol concentration when he was operating his motor vehicle [@6]

Lam appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court refused to hear the appeal: 2016 ONCA 850

The Court did so for four reasons.

First, leave from summary conviction proceedings are exceptional. Moreover, there is a need for finality. When all is said and done Lam will have had 2 trials, 2 summary conviction appeals and this journey to the Court of Appeal. [@12]

Second, the grounds of appeal are a mix of law and fact. With respect to the law it concerns only “the application of well-settled principles of law in no need of restatement or refinement” [@13]

With respect to the misapprehension of facts, the facts in this case as so many others, rarely “transcend the idiosyncrasies of the case at hand” [@13]

Third:

invocation of the frequency with which alcohol-driving prosecutions populate the lists in the Ontario Court of Justice to fund a claim of wider application proves too much. If frequency of prosecution were the touchstone for granting leave to appeal, leave would become the rule, not the exception in alcohol-driving offences.

Fourth, the substantive issue is in fact well settled law: See St-Onge-Lamoureux, 2012 SCC 57 "(not Jackson, 2015 ONCA 832 as the respondent suggests)" [@15].

LT

Now or Never

Just after midnight in late October 2014 police came across Pociurko standing about 3 metres from his motor vehicle which had obviously just been in an accident. Mrs Pociurko and the couple’s child were also on scene and standing some 10-15meters from the car.

When police spoke with Pociurko he admitted to drinking but denied driving. Mrs Pociurko gave lots of different answers to the question of who was driving. Sometimes she said she was driving, other times her husband, sometimes she said both were driving. Finally she asserted that the accident was as a result of a mechanical failure. None of these versions had any impact on the officer’s legally authority to demand a sample of Pociurko’s breath.

The officer made just such a breath demand of Pociurko who asserted that because he was not the driver he would not blow. The officer let Pociurko know the consequence for refusing to provide a sample. Pociurko again refused and pulled out his cell phone. He told the officer he was calling his lawyer. The officer took the cell phone and placed Pociurko under arrest.

He was convicted at trial of refusing to provide a breath sample. He appealed, unsuccessfully: 2016 ONSC 6691

On appeal Pociurko argued that his refusal was equivocal because he was confused about his obligations. He further argued that his confusion and equivocation was apparent as he was trying to call his lawyer when he was so rudely interrupted by the police. The summary conviction appeal judge disagreed.

Richetti J held that the evidence did not support the defence assertion of confusion. In fact, to the contrary Richetti J found that there was “no confusion about the demand for a breath sample and there was no confusion about Mr Pociurko’s refusal to provide it promptly.” [@24]

Moreover, there is no obligation on police to explain the law. In other words, police did not have to explain to Pociurko that neither his claim of not being the driver nor his desire to speak with a lawyer were reasonable excuses for refusing . The summary conviction appeal judge gave short shrift to the defence assertion that such an obligation exists, instead finding that:

Mr. Pociurko took it upon himself to refuse to do so based on a basis which is not a reasonable excuse for the refusal. Essentially, he now blames the police officer for not explaining the law in much greater detail [@25]

In short, any version of ‘maybe I will later’ in response to a breath demand “constitutes a refusal since it is not providing a breath sample promptly” [@21]

LT

Can't Sneak that Third Party in the Back Door

Asogian Gunalingum was charged with kidnapping, extortion and assault. Prior to trial he applied to adduce evidence of a “third party suspect” – namely Victorbalaratnam. The court dismissed the application: 2014 ONSC 6512.

The victim, Veerpal Brar was taken from her home around 8 am on November 11, 2011. She was kidnapped from her home by a man dressed in a suit pretending to be a fence contractor. Brar also recalled that a second man, who she knew to be Vajinder Singh, assisted in the kidnapping. Brar was taken to another residence where she was tied to a cot and terrorized by Singh, the “fence contractor” and a third man. She was rescued by the police two days later.

When the police arrived at the location where Brar was being held captive there was a van in the driveway. It was registered to Nicholas Victorbalaratnam (the third party suspect). When the police attended Victorbalaratnam’s home they found him and Gunalingam – both were arrested.

When the police arrested Gunalingam they seized a pair of pants that had evidence linking him to the kidnapping of Brar. Brar noted that Gunalingam (shown to her in a lineup) “looked a little bit, a little bit like the guy who knocked at my door first, rang the bell, little bit. Little bit”. With respect to Victorbalaratnam she stated she did not know who he was.

The charges against Victorbalartnam were ultimately withdrawn. Gunalingam sought to cross-examine Brar and others suggesting that Victorbalaratnam was in fact the fence contractor – in other words, that Victorbalaratnam not Gunalingam is responsible for the crime. The defence notes, however, that it will not be “adducing or advancing a third party suspect as part of the defence’s case following the Crown’s case” [para 13]. Given this approach and the fact that the “third party suspect evidence” will be elicited in the Crown’s case Gunalingm contends no application is necessary.

The court rejected this contention:

I disagree with Mr. Leport that he is not advancing a third party suspect application. While defence counsel are to be afforded reasonable latitude in cross examination, in my view, any questions that are specifically designed to suggest to the jury that Mr. Victorbalaratnam committed the crime must satisfy the test set out in the leading decisions of R. v. McMillan (1975), 7 O.R. (2d) 750, 23 C.C.C. (2d) 160 (Ont. C.A.) and R. v. Grandinetti, 2005 SCC 5, [2005] 1 S.C.R. 27 (S.C.C.). I see no distinction between Mr. Lepore adducing evidence as part of his case or eliciting evidence as part of cross-examination.
[…]
Mr. Lepore is not relying on evidence of Mr. Victorbalaratnam’s motive or disposition to commit the crime. He argues that, since the Crown will lead evidence about Mr. Victorbalaratnam, the jury can draw reasonable inferences from the evidence. The bottom line is that he wants to suggest to the jury that the description of the kidnapper and other pieces of evidence likely point to Mr. Victorbalaratnam as the fence contractor and not the accused.
I do not consider Mr. Lepore’s submissions to be persuasive. In my view, there is no evidence that connects Mr. Victorbalaratnam to the offence. [@15, 18-19].

After reviewing the reasons why there was an insufficient evidentiary link the court held that there was therefore no air of reality to the third party suspect assertion.

DM

Objective validity: is that sufficient?

Jerzy Czerniawski was pulled over by the police. The stop was lawfully made to check on the sobriety of Czerniawski. The officer asked if he had any alcoholic beverages. Czerniawski said he had drunk four hours ago. The officer noted glossy and watery eyes, Czerniawski’s face was flush and there was a strong odour of an alcoholic beverage on his breath. The officer then said to Czerniawski that “he would be doing a roadside breath test”. The officer then read his demand from his notebook. Czerniawski was then escorted to the officer’s cruiser. The officer demonstrated the functioning of the approved screening device [ASD] and explained that Czerniawski had to provide a suitable sample of his breath. Czerniawski did so. He failed. He was arrested. It was later determined that his blood alcohol content was over the legal limit. He was charged.

At trial Czerniawski sought to exclude those results arguing that the officer violated his rights under section 8: 2016 ONCJ 505. The trial judge set out the officer’s evidence on this point as follows:

I approached him and asked if he had consumed any alcoholic beverages and at that point he admitted to me he was drinking four hours ago. I observed his eyes to be glossy and watery and his face to be flushed…I detected a strong odour of an alcoholic beverage on his breath. At that point I advised him he would be doing a roadside breath test. I subsequently read him and showed him the approved screening device demand from the front page of my notebook. [para 106]

The trial judge found that there was a breach of section 8. He did so on the basis that there was no evidence that the officer formed a “reasonable suspicion” to make the ASD demand as required by section 254(2).

In the case at bar, there is no evidence that Officer Bell formed a reasonable suspicion that Mr. Czerniawski had alcohol in his body while driving a motor vehicle. Therefore, based on the wording of s. 254 (2) of the Criminal Code and on the jurisprudence cited above, I find that Officer Bell failed to follow the required “statutory pathway” in order to make a legal demand to Mr. Czerniawski that he provide a sample of his breath into the approved screening device. Consequently, the obtaining of Mr. Czerniawski’s breath sample into the ASD was illegal. [Para 119].

The trial judge went on to exclude the results under section 24(2) finding there was a serious breach as the accused was “forced” to provide the roadside sample without the proper legal foundation for doing so.

With respect, this ruling is difficult to accept. First, while the officer did not say the “magic words” – that he formed a reasonable suspicion, it seems apparent that not only did he do so, but that he had more than adequate grounds to do so. Indeed, even if he had not subjectively formed the suspicion that the accused had alcohol in his body, objectively the grounds were more than sufficient. In other words, there was a legal basis upon which to make the demand.

Second, there is no need to say the “magic words”: Deitz, 1993 ABCA 24; Nesbeth, 2008 ONCA 579 @19-20; Harrison, 2012 BCCA 339 @13-14.

Third, even if there was a breach the evidence should not have been excluded. The indicia noted were undoubtedly sufficient to support a suspicion. Therefore, even if the officer did not subjectively understand he had the basis to make the ASD demand, objectively he did. In other words, the demand was objectively lawful. The samples could have been lawfully obtained. In this way the breach is a mere technical failure of the officer to properly articulate (or understand) that he had the legal basis to do what he did – something he was lawfully entitled to do.

DM

Invitation to knock? Depends if you are investigating or searching...

John Rogers backed into another vehicle. He was intoxicated when he did so. Someone noticed. Rogers left the scene but the police were called. The police obtained the licence plate of the vehicle Rogers was driving and went to the address of the registered owner. The officer entered the apartment complex at that address and knocked on the door. Rogers answered. As the officer spoke to Rogers standing at the door he formed grounds to arrest Rogers for impaired driving.

At trial Rogers argued that the officer violated his section 8 rights by approaching his door. The trial judge agreed and excluded the evidence obtained therefrom. The Crown successfully appealed to the summary conviction appeal court; a new trial was ordered. Rogers appealed from that ruling: 2016 SKCA 105.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and restored the trial judge's conclusion. The court accepted the Crown’s position on the law as follows:

Crown counsel on appeal submits that it is settled law that the police do not exceed the implied licence to knock simply because they are intent on investigating a potential criminal offence. He submits further that a police officer who is looking for information or evidence about a suspected offence, or even about an actual offence, which the police officer has reasonable grounds to believe has been committed, is not conducting a “search” for s. 8 purposes for that reason alone. In support of this proposition, he relies upon Laurin; R v Vu, 1999 BCCA 182 (CanLII), 133 CCC (3d) 481, leave to appeal to SCC refused [1999] SCCA No 330 (QL) [Vu]; R v Grotheim, 2001 SKCA 116 (CanLII), 161 CCC (3d) 49 [Grotheim]; R v Petri, 2003 MBCA 1 (CanLII), 171 CCC (3d) 553 [Petri]; and Van Wyk. He states that all of the officers in these cases were looking for information and evidence about possible or actual crimes but none of them violated s. 8 simply because they approached a residence and knocked on the door in an effort to further their investigation. [Para 27].

The court rejected the notion, however, that the implied invitation to knock included situations where the police approach “with the intention of gathering evidence about the state of an occupant’s sobriety” [para 28]. The court acknowledged that the line between “investigation” and “searching” is a difficult one to draw but insisted it must be drawn:

There are numerous other applications of the implied licence to knock principle from all levels of court. Often, the line between when the police intend to investigate a crime and when they intend to secure evidence in relation to it is not easy to perceive; but, in my view, none of the appellate authorities stand for the proposition urged upon us by the Crown in this appeal that the Court can ignore the express purpose of the police in approaching a dwelling house.  [Para 46].

In the end the court noted that the trial judge made the “critical finding” that the officer attended the Rogers’ residence “for the purpose of…obtaining evidence against” him. In such a case the officers exceeded the implied invitation to knock: see Evans, 1996 CanLII 248 (SCC).

This is indeed the critical finding. In Fowler, 2006 NBCA 90 the Court of Appeal noted that the trial judge, in that case, made the critical finding that the officers attended Fowler’s residence for the purpose of communicating with him. That finding resulted in no breach.

Notably, the Ontario Court of Appeal in Lotozky, 2006 CanLII 21041 (ONCA) recognized that the “fact that the police officer intends to pursue an investigation” of impaired driving “does not in my view exceed the bounds of the implied invitation” [Lotozky at para 35]. While the “entry” in that case was onto the driveway, the principles surrounding the implied invitation to knock remain the same. Where the officer had “a legitimate basis” for the entry – the investigation of a criminal offence – the entry was permissible.

The law surrounding this issue is nuanced. The distinctions are fine.  Attending one’s dwelling for the purpose of “investigating” an impaired driving offence is permissible conduct under the implied invitation. Attending for the purpose of “searching” is not.

DM

Recognizing Statutory Experts

Lorraine Parada was driving her car on Highway #2 in the municipal district of Air Ronge, Saskatchewan. Officer De Bruin noticed her driving. She was not driving well. She had crossed over the centre line, more than once. De Bruin pulled her over. As he spoke to her and asked for her licence and other documents he made observations that led him to suspect she was impaired. He made a roadside demand. As he did not have an approved screening device with him, he demanded she perform field sobriety tests [SFST] pursuant to section 254(2)(a) Code. Those tests, as per the Regulations, include the horizontal gaze nystagmus, the walk-and-turn test and the one-leg stand test. Parada failed. She was arrested. She later provided samples of her breath. She was over the legal limit. She was charged. She was convicted at trial. She appealed: 2016 SKCA 102.

On appeal Parada argued, inter alia, that the trial judge erred in allowing the officer to give "opinion" evidence related to the SFSTs without being qualified as an "expert" and requiring 657.3 notice. 

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The court began by noting that there are three recognized "categories" of experts capable of providing opinion evidence: (i) Mohan qualified experts; (ii) lay witness opinions (see Graat); and (iii) statutory experts. In relation to the statutory experts the court cited Bingley, 2015 ONCA 439. The court noted that in that case the ONCA held that drug recognition officers (evaluating officers as per s254 Code) need not be qualified to give an opinion on impairment. The statutory scheme, including the Code provisions and Regulations, provide the authority to permit DRE officers to give such an opinion.

In the present case section 254(2)(a) does not require that the officer be an "evaluating officer". If DREs need not be qualified under Mohan, the court concluded that officers performing the SFSTs need not be qualified under Mohan to provide evidence (admissible only for grounds at any rate) on the SFST tests.

Parada is another helpful decision settling the law across the country on issues related to the drug impaired driving provisions. As in Bingley, the court recognized the existence of "statutory" experts capable of giving an opinion pursuant to their qualifications under statute. This approach is logical, reasonable and consistent with statutory interpretation. It is one that the Supreme Court will likely accept when Bingley is decided later this year.

DM

Looked like a gun, walked like a gun, quacked like a gun

Dirie and Omar were both convicted of weapons possession offences. The sole issue at trial was identity. An apartment building equipped with a surveillance system captured the crime in progress. The trial judge found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the two men in the footage were Dirie and Omar. She compared the men in court to the security footage, and gave some weight to the evidence of a police officer who had encountered Dirie on many occasions and who also recognized him in the footage. His posture and the way he spoke out of the side of his mouth were notable features. The trial judge also concluded the objects brandished by Dirie and Omar in the footage were loaded, restricted weapons.

Dirie and Omar appealed their convictions for a number of reasons: R v Dirie, 2016 ONCA 502.

In relation to the footage, both Dirie and Omar argued that the quality was too limited for identification purposes, and that it was an unreasonable finding of fact that the objects held by the individuals in the video were determined by the trial judge to be loaded restricted firearms. Dirie argued that the distinct features which the officer testified about should not have been considered by the trial judge in identifying him. Omar argued that the trial judge ignored the fact that no clothes matching the clothes in the footage were discovered after a search warrant was executed: @ paras 4, 5.

The Court of Appeal, in a brief decision, rejected all of Dirie and Omar’s arguments. The Court found it was clear from the trial judge’s reasons that she was “alive to the risks inherent in identification evidence”, and that she properly instructed herself in accordance with the principles articulated in R v Nikolovski, [1996] 3 SCR 1197. The trial judge determined the video was of sufficient clarity and quality for comparison purposes, she reviewed the footage multiple times, and, in comparing the images to Dirie and Omar, she was entitled to rely on the relevant police evidence at trial: @ para 7.

The trial judge also recognized the significance of the footage to the Crown’s case, and did so by expressly averting to the fact that the search executed did not assist the Crown: @ para 8.

Regarding the trial judge’s finding that the objects in possession of Dirie and Omar were loaded and restricted weapons, the Court of Appeal concluded there was “ample evidence” to support the trial judge’s finding, including “the aggressive brandishing of the objects and a third party’s reaction to seeing the objects, which was captured on video”: @ para 10.

Comment

This is another recent case from the Court of Appeal (see also R v Benson, 2015 ONCA 827) which highlights the increasing importance of surveillance footage as effective (and, as in this case, sometimes critical) evidence for the Crown to lead in cases where identity may be difficult to prove. The utility of such footage is obvious: not only can it sometimes assist the trier of fact in reaching a possible determination as to identity, but it may also assist in the possible identification of other crucial details, including the possession of weapons.

SS

Constitutional Jurisdiction - Confirmed

Joseph Lloyd was charged with trafficking contrary to section 5(3)(a)(i)(D) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. He faced a mandatory minimum sentence of one year. He challenged that minimum and asserted that it violated section 12 of the Charter. Notwithstanding that the trial judge (and counsel) believed that Lloyd deserved a sentence of at least 12 months, the trial judge considered the constitutionality of the provision and held that it violated section 12. The trial judge “declared” the provision to be of no force and effect. The Crown appealed and succeeded. Lloyd appealed to the Supreme Court: 2016 SCC 13.

The Supreme Court’s ruling offers three significant points of interest: (i) constitutional jurisdiction; (ii) the standard for section 12; and (iii) the limits of section 7.

Constitutional Jurisdiction

Before considering the constitutionality of the minimum sentence, McLachlin CJ, writing for the majority, addressed the issue of the constitutional jurisdiction of provincial court judges. The Court of Appeal had taken issue with the provincial court judge’s purported “declaration” of invalidity – holding that only superior courts, which have inherent jurisdiction can make such a finding. McLachlin CJ agreed:

The law on this matter is clear. Provincial court judges are not empowered to make formal declarations that a law is of no force or effect under s. 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982; only superior court judges of inherent jurisdiction and courts with statutory authority possess this power.  However, provincial court judges do have the power to determine the constitutionality of a law where it is properly before them. As this Court stated in R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., 1985 CanLII 69 (SCC), [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295, at p. 316, “it has always been open to provincial courts to declare legislation invalid in criminal cases. No one may be convicted of an offence under an invalid statute.” See also Cuddy Chicks Ltd. v. Ontario (Labour Relations Board), 1991 CanLII 57 (SCC), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 5, at pp. 14-17; Douglas/Kwantlen Faculty Assn. v. Douglas College, 1990 CanLII 63 (SCC), [1990] 3 S.C.R. 570, at p. 592; Re Shewchuk and Ricard (1986), 1986 CanLII 174 (BC CA), 28 D.L.R. (4th) 429 (B.C.C.A.), at pp. 439-40; K. Roach, Constitutional Remedies in Canada (2nd ed. (loose-leaf)), at p. 6-25.
[...]
The effect of a finding by a provincial court judge that a law does not conform to the Constitution is to permit the judge to refuse to apply it in the case at bar. The finding does not render the law of no force or effect under s. 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982. [Emphasis added]. @paras15 and 19

McLachlin CJ thus confirmed that while the provincial court judge in the present case had the statutory jurisdiction to consider the constitutionality of the provision – and to grant a remedy for Lloyd – the court had no inherent jurisdiction and thus no authority to make a “formal declaration”. Notably, McLachlin CJ went on to make clear that in cases such as the present one (where Lloyd was not impacted by the mandatory minimum) the doctrine of mootness could apply and the court could (perhaps should) decline to consider the issue:

To be sure, it does not follow that a provincial court judge is obligated to consider the constitutionality of a mandatory minimum provision where it can have no impact on the sentence in the case at issue. Judicial economy dictates that judges should not squander time and resources on matters they need not decide. But a formalistic approach should be avoided. Thus, once the judge in this case determined that the mandatory minimum did not materially exceed the bottom of the sentencing range applicable to Mr. Lloyd, he could have declined to consider its constitutionality. To put it in legal terms, the doctrine of mootness should be flexibly applied. If an issue arises as to the validity of the law, the provincial court judge has the power to determine it as part of the decision-making process in the case. To compel provincial court judges to conduct an analysis of whether the law could have any impact on an offender’s sentence, as a condition precedent to considering the law’s constitutional validity, would place artificial constraints on the trial and decision-making process. [Emphasis added]. @para18

This conclusion is indeed consistent with the Court’s prior jurisprudence on this point and, equally important, logical and principled. There is nothing in our constitutional history and nothing in our principles of law that would warrant otherwise.

Section 12

Turning to the constitutionality, McLachlin CJ held that the provision violated section 12 – a three-member minority (Gascon, Wagner and Brown JJ) dissented on this conclusion and would have upheld the provision. Notably, however, McLachlin CJ offered some helpful language regarding the high bar for a finding of disproportionality under section 12:

This Court has established a high bar for finding that a sentence represents a cruel and unusual punishment. To be “grossly disproportionate” a sentence must be more than merely excessive. It must be “so excessive as to outrage standards of decency” and “abhorrent or intolerable” to society: Smith, at p. 1072, citing Miller v. The Queen, 1976 CanLII 12 (SCC), [1977] 2 S.C.R. 680, at p. 688; Morrisey, at para. 26; R. v. Ferguson, 2008 SCC 6 (CanLII), [2008] 1 S.C.R. 96, at para. 14. The wider the range of conduct and circumstances captured by the mandatory minimum, the more likely it is that the mandatory minimum will apply to offenders for whom the sentence would be grossly disproportionate. @para24

The import of this can be understood – to some extent – when one reviews the dissent which expresses notable concern and offers a note of caution about the impact of the majority’s finding on this standard and how the majority’s conclusion appears out of step with the Court’s prior position on mandatory minimum sentences. @paras105-107.

Section 7

The final area of interest in Lloyd is the Court’s consideration and rejection of “proportionality” as a principle of fundamental justice. Notably, the Court considered the same issue in Safarzadeh-Markhali, 2016 SCC 14. In both cases the Court rejected the inclusion of “proportionality” as a principle of fundamental justice – in Lloyd the following comments summarize that rejection:

I am unable to accept the submission that the principle of proportionality in sentencing is a principle of fundamental justice under s. 7 of the Charter. My starting point is the observation that principles of fundamental justice in s. 7 must be defined in a way that promotes coherence within the Charter and conformity to the respective roles of Parliament and the courts.
[…]
Recognition of the principle of proportionality in sentencing as a principle of fundamental justice under s. 7 would also have implications for the respective roles of Parliament and the courts. The principle of proportionality is an admirable guide for judges seeking to impose fit sentences within the legal parameters established by Parliament.  But it is not an overarching constitutional principle that allows judges to subvert the norms of punishment enacted by Parliament. Those norms are judged only by the standard of s. 12.
[…]
Parliament has the power to make policy choices with respect to the imposition of punishment for criminal activities and the crafting of sentences that it deems appropriate to balance the objectives of deterrence, denunciation, rehabilitation and protection of society. Courts owe Parliament deference in a s. 12 analysis. As Borins Dist. Ct. J. stated in an oft-approved passage:
It is not for the court to pass on the wisdom of Parliament with respect to the gravity of various offences and the range of penalties which may be imposed upon those found guilty of committing the offences. Parliament has broad discretion in proscribing conduct as criminal and in determining proper punishment. While the final judgment as to whether a punishment exceeds constitutional limits set by the Charter is properly a judicial function, the court should be reluctant to interfere with the considered views of Parliament and then only in the clearest of cases where the punishment prescribed is so excessive when compared with the punishment prescribed for other offences as to outrage standards of decency. (R. v. Guiller (1985), 48 C.R. (3d) 226 (Ont.), at p. 238)
[Emphasis added]. @paras 40, 43 and 45

DM

 

Realistically Dangerous

At 5:20am Balogun-Jubril [hereafter BJ] like a lot of folks was sound asleep. Unlike other folks though BJ was not tucked snugly into his bed. BJ was in the driver’s seat of his car. The car was off, the transmission was in park but the key was in the ignition. Most peculiar however was the location of BJ’s car. He was stopped in a lane of an exit ramp on a provincial highway. The location of the vehicle and BJ’s deep sleep caught the attention of both the Ministry of Transportation and police. Once conscious BJ exhibited what officers described as significant signs of impairment.

At 6:41am BJ provided his first of two breath samples which confirmed what the officers suspected – BJ’s blood alcohol concentration was well over the legal limit at 150mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood. BJ was charged with driving over the legal limit and impaired driving.

At trial BJ testified. He claimed that at 2:45am as he was driving his car stopped working. A mechanic testified that the vehicle was inoperable, as the oil had leaked causing the engine to seize.

The trial judge found that BJ was not operating the vehicle while impaired but was in care and control of the vehicle. The trial judge then concluded that BJ had “not engaged in an intentional course of conduct that had created a realistic risk of danger.” As a result she acquitted BJ of both charges.

The Crown successfully appealed to the summary conviction appeal court. The summary conviction appeal court held:

that the trial judge committed a palpable and overriding factual error in concluding that there was no realistic risk of danger to persons or property when the police arrived on the scene. Noting the "low threshold" of establishing that the conduct of the accused in relation to his motor vehicle created a realistic risk of danger to public safety, the appeal judge set aside the trial judge's decision and registered convictions on both counts against the appellant.  @para 5

At the Court of Appeal BJ advanced two grounds of appeal: 2016 ONCA 199. First, that the summary conviction appeal judge “was not entitled to interfere with the trial judge’s finding that there was no realistic risk of danger to the public, as deference is owed to findings of fact.”

Second, even if the appellate judge was entitled to interfere with the trial judge’s finding, “the risk identified by the appeal judge is properly characterized as ‘theoretical’ and not ‘realistic’.” @para 6

With respect to the first ground the Court of Appeal held that the trial judge embarked upon the wrong inquiry. The trial judge framed her conclusion as follows BJ had done "all that could be done to reduce the risk".

That of course is not the correct or even “pertinent inquiry. The question the court must determine is whether any realistic risk of danger was created.” @para 12

Juriansz JA writing for a unanimous Court held that:

given the incorrect analysis of the trial judge, the appeal judge was entitled to interfere with her conclusion and to find that the risk was realistic, and not merely theoretical. On the facts found by the trial judge, I would conclude that he was correct in doing so.
While the application of the standard of review is a question of law, this proposed argument has no merit and cannot provide a basis for leave to appeal.  @paras 13-14

On the second ground the Court held that whether the risk was realistic or theoretical is not a question of pure law and therefore could not be advanced on appeal. @para 16

The ONCA refused leave to appeal. @para 17

Although impaired and over 80 cases are some of the most demanding offences to prove from an evidentiary perspective as is clear from the various rulings in the present case, the outcome here is one of pure and simple common sense.

BJ was in the driver’s seat of his car. The car was in a lane on a ramp on a highway. The key was in the ignition. There can be no question that such a vehicle poses a risk of danger to other motorists. Further exacerbating this risk was the fact that BJ was impaired by alcohol and his blood alcohol concentration was nearly twice the legal limit. Nothing other than realistically dangerous about that

LT

Some is all you need

Webster was accused of committing offences against is former domestic partner. At the preliminary inquiry the now ex-partner testified via closed circuit television in a sequestration suite designed to allow witnesses to testify outside of the presence of accused.

She testified that she knew Webster, had been engaged to him and that they resided at the address specified in the information before the court.

The complainant was not asked to identify Webster nor from the sequestration suite would she have been able to do so.

At the conclusion of the preliminary hearing the defence argued that the accused should be discharged as the crown had failed to adduce some evidence that the accused before the court was the person who committed the offences.

The preliminary hearing judge discharged the accused. The Crown successfully sought the extraordinary remedies of certiorari and mandamus. Webster appealed to the Court of Appeal seeking to have the discharge reinstated. That appeal was dismissed: 2016 ONCA 189.

In a brief endorsement the Court reminded us that:

It is well settled that the identity of names a complainant identifies as her assailant and the person charged constitutes some evidence of identity. It is all the more so, when the name is accompanied by an address and other biographical details: R. v. Chandra (1975), 29 C.C.C. (2d) 570 (B.C.C.A.), at p. 573; and R. v. B.(D.), [2007] O.J. No. 1893 (C.A.), at para. 1.

The Court agreed with the certiorari judge that preliminary inquiry judge committed a jurisdictional error by failing to consider the whole of the evidence and in particular the identity of names as some evidence of identity.  [at para 6]

LT