Appendix B - Appellant's Factum in R v Grant, 2009 SCC 32

• Author: Mark C. Halfyard/Michael Dineen/Jonathan Dawe
• Pages: 185-234

185

Appellant’s Factum in R v Grant,

2009 SCC 32

B

i

Court File No. 31892

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

(ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO)

B E T W E E N

DONNOHUE GRANT

Appellant (Appellant)

– and –

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Respondent (Respondent)

APPELLANT’S FACTUM

[Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada, Rule 42]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I: OVERVIEW AND STATEMENT OF FACTS............................................................... 1

A. Overview ............................................................................................................................. 1

B. Statement of Facts ............................................................................................................... 2

1) The Detention and Search of the Appellant .................................................................... 2

2) The Judgments Below ..................................................................................................... 3

a) Section 24(2) of the Charter ....................................................................................... 3

b) The interpretation of s. 100 of the Criminal Code ...................................................... 4

PART II: QUESTIONS IN ISSUE ................................................................................................. 5

PART III: ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................. 5

A. “Conscriptive” Evidence and s. 24(2) of the Charter ......................................................... 5

1) Introduction and Overview ............................................................................................. 5

2) The Stillman Majority and Dissenting Judgments .......................................................... 6

a) The meaning of “trial fairness” ................................................................................... 6

b) The consequences of a finding that evidence would make a trial “unfair” ................ 8

3) Subsequent s. 24(2) Charter Decisions Reaffirming Stillman ...................................... 10

4) Justice LeBel’s Orbanski Concurrence ......................................................................... 11

5) The Ontario Court of Appeal’s Judgment in Grant ...................................................... 12

6) Should Stillman be Overturned? ................................................................................... 15

a) The principle against self-incrimination and section 7 ............................................. 15

b) Stare decisis and the criticisms of Stillman .............................................................. 23

186 Appendix B

ii

(1) The Need for “Compelling Circumstances” to Reverse Established Precedent 23

(2) Academic Criticism of the Collins/Stillman approach ...................................... 25

c) Conclusions re the continued validity of Stillman .................................................... 33

7) Admissibility of the Evidence in the Case at Bar Under the Second and Third Branches

of the Collins Analysis .......................................................................................................... 35

B. The Meaning of “Transfer” in ss. 84, 99 and 100 of the Criminal Code ......................... 37

PART IV: SUBMISSIONS RE COSTS ....................................................................................... 40

PART V: ORDERS SOUGHT ..................................................................................................... 40

PART VI: AUTHORITIES TO BE CITED ................................................................................. 41

PART VII: STATUTORY PROVISIONS ................................................................................... 45

A. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ...................................................................... 45

B. Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 ............................................................. 46

Appendix B 187

1

PART I: OVERVIEW AND STATEMENT OF FACTS

A. Overview

1. The main issue in this appeal is whether this Court should overturn its prior s. 24(2)

Charter jurisprudence on “conscriptive evidence”, including its landmark judgment in R. v.

Stillman, infra. In the judgment on appeal, the Ontario Court of Appeal directed Ontario trial

courts to apply an entirely new test. This new test conflicts with this Court’s current s. 24(2)

jurisprudence in two ways:1

(i) Under this Court’s established s. 24(2) analytic framework, evidence that would

render the trial unfair must be excluded without regard to the remaining Collins

factors. In contrast, the Court of Appeal’s new test instructs judges to “balance” 10

the resulting unfairness against the other Collins factors, and will often result in

evidence being admitted even though this makes the trial unfair;

(ii) This Court’s s. 24(2) jurisprudence strongly links “trial fairness” to the principle

against self-incrimination. In contrast, the Court of Appeal’s new test treats the

self-incriminatory character of evidence as unimportant and emphasizes other

unrelated considerations, such as its reliability. or whether it was obtained through

exceptionally abusive police misconduct.

On both of these points, the Court of Appeal’s new test is contrary to the Stillman majority

judgment and takes a position strongly reminiscent of views of the Stillman dissenters.

R. v. Stillman, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 607 20

R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265

R. v. S.(R.J.), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 451

2. The central question in this appeal, therefore, is whether this Court should follow the

Ontario Court of Appeal’s lead and reverse its holdings on these issues in Stillman and other s.

24(2) cases. The Appellant’s position is that there are no “compelling circumstances” that might

justify such a radical re-writing of established Charter precedent. Further, this Court cannot

drastically alter its approach to the admission under s. 24(2) of compelled statements and

otherwise undiscoverable derivative evidence – the particular type of “conscriptive evidence” at

1 This issue is discussed in detail at paras. 9-23, infra.