Justice Peter De Carteret Cory and his charter approach to regulatory offences.

AuthorComiskey, Marie
PositionCanada

I INTRODUCTION II WHAT IS THE VALUE OF EXAMINING ONE JUDGE'S JURISPRUDENCE? III WHOLESALE TRAVEL The Conceptual Divide Between Regulatory and Pure Crime Offences Justice Cory's Approach to Section 11(d) IV RANDOM STOP POWER UPHELD IN LADOUCEUR Development of the Ripple Effect of a Regulatory Offence on Charter Analysis Defining the Outer Limits of the Roving Random Stop Power Can the Random Stop Power Be Coupled with Other Purposes? V HUNDAL--THE REGULATORY OFFENCE CHARTER ANALYSIS IS EXTENDED TO A CRIMINAL CODE OFFENCE VI COLARUSSO--DISPENSING WITH THE HUNTER V. SOUTHAM STANDARD IN AN IMPAIRED DRIVING CASE VII BERNSHAW--DECISION TO DRIVE IMPLIES CONSENT TO AN IMMEDIATE BREATH TEST DESPITE RISK OF FALSE POSITIVE VIII JUSTICE CORY'S CHARTER APPROACH IN PURE CRIME OFFENCES--THE ACCUSED AS THE VULNERABLE IN NEED OF PROTECTION IX CONCLUSION ABSTRACT

This article unearths an anomaly in Justice Peter de Carteret Cory's Supreme Court of Canada criminal law jurisprudence. While Justice Cory is' normally recognized as a fearless champion of the rights of the accused, his Charter decisions involving regulatory offences or criminal offences with a significant regulatory background such as impaired driving belie a different reality. In particular, his regulatory offence decisions reflect a willingness to elevate the state objective of safe roads over the right of the individual to be free from arbitrary detention by the police.

The article first considers what purpose a close examination of one judge's jurisprudence serves. Second, the article examines Justice Cory's opinion in Wholesale Travel which demonstrates" his conceptual framework for the differential treatment of regulatory offences. Specifically, Justice Cory's decision in Wholesale Travel outlines three reasons why the Court should adopt a different Charter analysis" for regulatory offences as opposed to pure criminal offences: (1) the licensing justification; (2) the vulnerability justification, and (3) the fault distinction. The article explores Justice Cory 's use of these rationales to justify the state's power to randomly stop vehicles (Ladoucer), and the use of a negligence standard for mens rea in dangerous driving cases (Hundal). The article then suggests" that Justice Cory's willingness to dispense with the Hunter v. Southam requirement of a search warrant in Colarusso is in conflict with his groundbreaking decision in Stillman, but can be explained by his approach to regulatory offences. Finally, the article contrasts Justice Cory's regulatory jurisprudence with three cases where Justice Cory showed a robust interpretation of an accused's Charter rights" in the traditional criminal law context: Kindler, Stillman and Daviault. This section suggests that the primary distinction between the pure crime jurisprudence and regulatory law jurisprudence is that in the former Justice Cory identifies' the accused as the sole vulnerable person in need of protection from the state, whereas in the latter the accused shares the stage with the general public, who are also characterized as a vulnerable entity requiring protection from unsafe drivers.

RESUME

Cet article deterre une anomalie de justice a la court supreme du juge Peter de Carteret Cory sur la jurisprudence du droit penal Canadien. Tandis que le juge Cory est normalement identifiee comme un champion des droits de l'accusal, ses decisions de charte comportant des offenses de normalisation ou des offenses criminelles avec un arriere plan de normalisation significatif tel que la conduite sous influence demontre une realite differente. En particulier, ses decisions de normalisation d'offense refletent une volonte d'elever l'objectif de securite de l'etat des routes au-dessus des droits de l'individu d'etre exemptes de la detention arbitraire par la police.

L'article considere d'abord quel est l'objectif d'un examen etroit d'une jurisprudence servie par un juge. En second lieu, l'article examine l'opinion du juge Cory pour Wholesale Travel qui demontre son cadre conceptuel pour le traitement differentiel des offenses de normalisation. Specifiquement, la decision du juge Cory de la Cour supreme dans Wholesale Travel decrit trois raisons pour lesquelles la cour devrait adopter une analyse differente de charte pour des offenses de normalisation par opposition aux offenses purement criminelles: (1) la justification d'autorisation; (2) la justification de vulnerabilite, et (3) la distinction de defaut. L 'article explore l'utilisation du juge Cory et de ces raisonnements pour justifier la puissance de l'etat d'arreter aleatoirement des vehicules (Ladoucer), et l'utilisation d'une norme de negligence pour la norme de la mens rea dans des cas de conduite dangereuse (Hundal). L'article suggere alors que la volonte du juge Cory de se dispenser de l'exigence de Hunter c. Southam d'un mandat de perquisition dans Colarusso soit en conflit avec sa decision d'inauguration dans Stillman, mais peut etre explique par son approche aux offenses' de normalisation. En conclusion, l'article contraste la jurisprudence de normalisation du juge Cory avec trois cas ou lejuge Cory a demontre une interpretation robuste accusant d'une charte des droits dans le contexte traditionnel du droit penal: Kindler, Stillman et Daviault. Cette section suggere que la distinction primaire entre lajurisprudence du pure crime et lajurisprudence de la loi sur la normalisation soit celle que l'ancien juge Cory identifie l'accuse en tant que personne vulnerable unique necessitant la protection contre 1'etat, tandis que dans ce dernier l'accuse partage l'estrade avec le grand public, qui sont egalement caracteisees comme entite vulnerable exigeant la protection contre les conducteurs dangereux.

I INTRODUCTION

Justice Peter de Carteret Cory enjoyed a judicial career that spanned twenty five years, beginning with his appointment to the Ontario District Court in 1974 and ending with his elevation to the Supreme Court of Canada in 1989, where he served until 1999. He is described by the current Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin as a "consummate" judge, someone who brings a unique combination of excellence and surpassing human decency to all that he has accomplished in life. (1) Upon his retirement in 1999, the Criminal Lawyers Association awarded him the prestigious G. Arthur Martin Criminal Justice Medal in recognition of his substantial contribution to the development of criminal law. (2)

While on the Supreme Court of Canada, Justice Cory authored opinions in 192 decisions including majority judgments, dissenting opinions and concurring reasons. Of these decisions, 113, or 59%, were written in criminal cases. Moreover, many of these criminal law cases were landmark decisions that championed the rights of the accused through a robust interpretation of the Charter. (3) For example, he authored R. v. Askov, (4) the unreasonable delay decision; Kindler v. Canada (Minister of Justice), (5) in which he dissented and found that extradition in cases where the death penalty may be imposed constitutes cruel and unusual punishment; (6) R. v. Daviault, (7) in which he held that the defence of intoxication must be available to general intent offences; R. v. Finta, (8) in which he required a higher level of mens rea for a war crimes offence; and R. v. Stillman, (9) the seminal s. 24(2) Charter decision in which he distinguished between conscriptive and non-conscriptive evidence.

This article arose out of an examination of the 113 criminal law judgments written by Justice Cory while serving on the Supreme Court of Canada. In reading these judgments, a pattern was observed that seemed to conflict with Justice Cory's reputation as a judge who fearlessly championed the rights of the accused in his interpretation of the Charter. Where the Charter issue involved a regulatory offence or an offence with a regulatory background, such as impaired driving, Justice Cory seemed to be willing to either find that no Charter violation existed, or that the impairment was one that could be upheld under s. 1 of the Charter as a reasonable limit in our democratic society.

A second observation about Justice Cory's jurisprudence also emerged from this examination: many of the cases related to some aspect of the regulation and management of roads and highways in Canada. In these cases, he repeatedly expressed alarm at the number of deaths and injuries resulting from road accidents, and espoused support for legislation aimed at identifying and deterring unlicensed, uninsured and inebriated drivers.

The object of this article is to explore and analyse Justice Cory's approach to Charter issues relating to regulatory offences and offences with a regulatory context. Before entering into this analysis, the article grapples with the question of what purpose is served by a close examination of a judge's body of jurisprudence. In Part II, this article suggests that through this process one gains a better understanding of the complexity of judicial decision-making, the judge's personal judicial philosophy, and a more nuanced comprehension of the legal issues before the Supreme Court of Canada during the time period. In Part Ill, the article then turns to a discussion of R. v. Wholesale Travel Group Inc., (10) in which Justice Cory clearly lays out his reasons for conceptualizing a different Charter analysis for regulatory offences. In Parts IV to Part VIII, the article then shifts focus to five decisions that share two similarities. (11) First, the decisions are in some way related to the issue of the regulation of roads, and second, each reflects a willingness on Justice Cory's part to allow greater latitude for the infringement of the rights or freedoms of individuals for the social objective of the regulatory legislation to be achieved. (12)

The article ends with a short discussion of three cases in which Justice Cory demonstrated a robust interpretation of the accused's Charter rights...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT