R. v. Badgerow (R.), (2014) 321 O.A.C. 1 (CA)

• Judge: Hoy, A.C.J.O., Gillese and Strathy, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: December 18, 2013
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (2014), 321 O.A.C. 1 (CA);2014 ONCA 272

R. v. Badgerow (R.) (2014), 321 O.A.C. 1 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] O.A.C. TBEd. AP.013

Her Majesty the Queen (appellant) v. Robert Badgerow (respondent)

(C56067; 2014 ONCA 272)

Indexed As: R. v. Badgerow (R.)

Ontario Court of Appeal

Hoy, A.C.J.O., Gillese and Strathy, JJ.A.

April 8, 2014.

Summary:

Badgerow was charged with first degree murder in relation to the 1981 slaying of the victim. He had been tried three times for that offence. At all three trials, the jury did not hear 911-trace evidence from which they could have concluded that a 911 call had been traced to a payphone at Badgerow's workplace. He brought an application for a stay of proceedings to prevent being tried for a fourth time.

The Ontario Superior Court, in a decision reported at [2012] O.T.C. Uned. 4829, ordered the stay under s. 24(1) of the Charter. A fourth trial would be a breach of Badgerow's right to life, liberty and security of the person under s. 7 of the Charter, and an abuse of process. The Crown appealed. Admissibility of the 911-trace evidence was the critical issue. Submissions focused on the reliability of that evidence.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the stay and ordered a new trial. The application judge never subjected the 911-trace evidence to a principled analysis. Under a principled analysis, the 911-trace evidence met the test for threshold reliability and was admissible. The application judge's decision on the stay was the product of an error of law. "[T]here is a strong public interest in a trial on all the legally admissible evidence, and this swings the balance against a stay."

Civil Rights - Topic 8374

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Stay of proceedings - [See second Evidence - Topic 1527 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8403

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Criminal proceedings - Stay of proceedings - [See second Evidence - Topic 1527 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4383

Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Telephone records - [See second Evidence - Topic 1527 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4957.1

Appeals - Indictable offences - New trials - Grounds - Failure to consider evidence - [See second Evidence - Topic 1527 ].

Evidence - Topic 1504

Hearsay rule - General principles and definitions - What constitutes hearsay - The Ontario Court of Appeal reviewed the reasons for the hearsay rule and the modern approach to hearsay in Canada - See paragraphs 96 to 102.

Evidence - Topic 1507

Hearsay rule - General principles and definitions - What constitutes hearsay - Implied assertions - This appeal concerned non-assertive conduct - The Crown had tendered 911-trace evidence as an implied assertion that the police believed the 911 call had been traced to a payphone at a specific location and that the belief was true - The Ontario Court of Appeal stated that the issue whether the hearsay rule applied to assertions implied through non-verbal conduct "has been much discussed in the academic literature, but less so in the case law. ... To the extent the issue has been considered in Canada, the cases have tended to regard no-assertive conduct as outside the scope of the hearsay rule. ... For the purposes of this case, it is unnecessary to state a general principle as to whether inferences from non-verbal conduct should be treated as hearsay. I suggest, however, that a principled case-by-case approach may be appropriate, depending on the nature of the conduct, the presence or absence of hearsay dangers and concerns with respect to trial fairness due to the inability to cross-examine the 'declarant' or other witnesses. ... In this case, I would apply the principled approach. It focuses the analysis on whether the inferences to be drawn from the conduct, or the 'implied assertions', are sufficiently reliable to be left with the jury and whether there are sufficient means to test the evidence to ensure the process is fair to the respondent." - See paragraphs 120 to 135.

Evidence - Topic 1527

Hearsay rule - Exceptions and exclusions - Where admission of hearsay necessary and evidence reliable - [See Evidence - Topic 1504 ].

Evidence - Topic 1527

Hearsay rule - Exceptions and exclusions - Where admission of hearsay necessary and evidence reliable - The Crown wanted to try the accused a fourth time for the first degree murder of the victim in 1981 - At all three trials, the jury did not hear 911-trace evidence from which they could have concluded that a 911 call had been traced to a payphone at the accused's workplace - The accused applied for a stay of the proceedings - The application judge found a fourth trial would be a breach of s. 7 of the Charter and an abuse of process - He ordered the stay under s. 24(1) of the Charter - The Crown appealed - The key issue was the reliability of the 911-trace evidence - The Ontario Court of Appeal set aside the stay and ordered a new trial - Under a principled analysis, the 911-trace evidence met the test for threshold reliability and was admissible - Corroborative evidence provided an assurance of the threshold reliability of the trace and of the accurate communication of the results to police - The accused's DNA was found in the victim - He testified he had consensual intercourse with her on the night of the killing - The jury did not, however, hear relevant and highly probative evidence from which they could have concluded that a 911 call, giving details of the crime that only the killer was likely to have known, had been traced to a payphone at the accused's workplace - The exclusion of that evidence meant there had never been a trial of the accused at which all the properly admissible evidence had been placed before the jury for its consideration - The public interest in such a trial outweighed any unfairness in trying the accused a fourth time - See paragraphs 3, 185 to 210.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Khan, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 531; 113 N.R. 53; 41 O.A.C. 353, refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. Starr (R.D.), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 144; 258 N.R. 250; 148 Man.R.(2d) 161; 224 W.A.C. 161; 2000 SCC 40, refd to. [para. 55].

R. v. Merz (H.J.) (1999), 127 O.A.C. 1; 46 O.R.(3d) 161 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (2000), 263 N.R. 391; 141 O.A.C. 398, refd to. [para. 55].

R. v. Khelawon (R.), [2006] 2 S.C.R. 787; 355 N.R. 267; 220 O.A.C. 338; 2006 SCC 57, refd to. [para. 56].

R. v. Wu (J.J.) et al. (2002), 167 O.A.C. 141; 170 C.C.C.(3d) 225 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 61].

R. v. Keyowski, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 657; 83 N.R. 296; 65 Sask.R. 122, refd to. [para. 69].

R. v. Jack (B.G.), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 334; 214 N.R. 294; 118 Man.R.(2d) 168; 149 W.A.C. 168, reving. (1997), 113 Man.R.(2d) 84; 131 W.A.C. 84 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 69].

R. v. Hunter (N.) (2001), 146 O.A.C. 390; 54 O.R.(3d) 695 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 69].

R. v. A.L. (2004), 185 O.A.C. 313; 183 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 68].

R. v. Taillefer (B.), [2003] 3 S.C.R. 307; 313 N.R. 1; 2003 SCC 70, refd to. [para. 68].

R. v. Beaulac (J.V.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 768; 238 N.R. 131; 121 B.C.A.C. 227; 198 W.A.C. 227, refd to. [para. 69].

R. v. K.M.E., [2009] 2 S.C.R. 19; 389 N.R. 20; 272 B.C.A.C. 1; 459 W.A.C. 1; 2009 SCC 27, refd to. [para. 69].

R. v. Vanezis (A.) (2006), 217 O.A.C. 127; 83 O.R.(3d) 241 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 69].

R. v. McKenzie (W.M.), [2004] O.T.C. 737 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 71].

R. v. Keyowski (1986), 49 Sask.R. 64; 28 C.C.C.(3d) 553 (C.A.), affd. [1988] 1 S.C.R. 657; 83 N.R. 296; 65 Sask.R. 122, refd to. [para. 71].

R. v. Babos (A.) (2014), 454 N.R. 86; 2014 SCC 16, refd to. [para. 91].

R. v. Mota (1979), 46 C.C.C.(2d) 273 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 93].

R. v. Baldree (C.) (2013), 445 N.R. 247; 306 O.A.C. 1; 298 C.C.C.(3d) 425; 2013 SCC 35, consd. [paras. 96, 110].

R. v. F.J.U., [1995] 3 S.C.R. 764; 186 N.R. 365; 85 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 97].

R. v. Smith (A.L.), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 915; 139 N.R. 323; 55 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 99].

Chandrasekera v. R., [1937] A.C. 220 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 107].

R. v. Underwood (G.R.) (2002), 320 A.R. 151; 288 W.A.C. 151; 130 C.C.C.(3d) 500; 2002 ABCA 310, refd to. [para. 107].

R. v. Perciballi (P.) et al. (2001), 146 O.A.C. 1; 54 O.R.(3d) 346 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 107].

R. v. Kearley, [1992] 2 A.C. 228; 136 N.R. 81 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 113].

R. v. Wilson (R.) (1996), 90 O.A.C. 386; 29 O.R.(3d) 97 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 113].

Wright v. Tatham, Doe d (1837), 7 Ad. & E. 313; 112 E.R. 488 (Exch. Ch.), refd to. [para. 122].

R. v. K.G.B., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 740; 148 N.R. 241; 61 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 139].

R. v. Ferris (J.M.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 756; 174 N.R. 158; 162 A.R. 108; 83 W.A.C. 108 affing. (1994), 149 A.R. 1; 63 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 146].

R. v. Esrabian (S.) (2013), 313 O.A.C. 273; 2013 ONCA 761, refd to. [para. 147].

Idaho v. Wright (1990), 497 U.S. 805, refd to. [para. 169].

R. v. Couture (D.R.), [2007] 2 S.C.R. 517; 364 N.R. 1; 244 B.C.A.C. 1; 403 W.A.C. 1; 2007 SCC 28, refd to. [para. 171].

R. v. D.B. (2013), 310 O.A.C. 294; 2013 ONCA 578, refd to. [para. 171].

R. v. Blackman (L.), [2008] 2 S.C.R. 298; 376 N.R. 265; 239 O.A.C. 368; 2008 SCC 37, refd to. [para. 173].

R. v. Singh (P.) (2010), 270 O.A.C. 293; 266 C.C.C.(3d) 466; 2010 ONCA 808, leave to appeal refused (2011), 424 N.R. 398; 287 O.A.C. 400 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 174].

R. v. Carroll (R.) (2014), 314 O.A.C. 281; 2014 ONCA 2, refd to. [para. 174].

R. v. Bellusci (R.), [2012] 2 S.C.R. 509; 433 N.R. 135; 2012 SCC 44, refd to. [para. 187].

R. v. M.T. (2013), 308 O.A.C. 143; 299 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 2013 ONCA 476, refd to. [para. 187].

R. v. Spackman (K.) (2012), 300 O.A.C. 14; 295 C.C.C.(3d) 177; 2012 ONCA 905, refd to. [para. 189].

R. v. Harvey (A.W) (2001), 152 O.A.C. 162; 57 O.R.(3d) 296 (C.A.), affd. [2002] 4 S.C.R. 311; 313 N.R. 190; 180 O.A.C. 254; 2002 SCC 80, refd to. [para. 189].

R. v. Keegstra (J.), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 381; 180 N.R. 120; 169 A.R. 50; 97 W.A.C. 50, refd to. [para. 189].

R. v. James (R.) (2011), 287 O.A.C. 18; 283 C.C.C.(3d) 212; 2011 ONCA 839, refd to. [para. 191].

R. v. Van (D.) (2008), 236 O.A.C. 219; 92 O.R.(3d) 462; 2008 ONCA 383, revd. on other grounds [2009] 1 S.C.R. 716; 388 N.R. 200; 251 O.A.C. 295; 2009 SCC 22, refd to. [para. 195].

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Tobiass et al., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 391; 218 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 201].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Broun, Kenneth S., McCormick on Evidence (7th Ed. 2013), § 250 [para. 127].

Bryant, Alan W., Lederman, Sidney N., and Fuerst, Michelle K., The Law of Evidence in Canada (3rd Ed. 2009), para. 6.55 [para. 134].

McCormick, Charles T., The Borderland of Hearsay (1930), 39 Yale L.J. 489, pp. 491 [para. 109]; 504 [para. 126].

Paciocco, David M., The Hearsay Exceptions: A Game of Rock, Paper, Scissor in Special Lectures of the Law Society of Upper Canada 2003: The Law of Evidence (2004), generally [para. 170, footnote 6].

Stewart, Hamish, Halsbury's Laws of Canada: Evidence (1st Ed. 2010), para. HEV-83 [para. 128].

Counsel:

Randy Schwartz, for the appellant;

Frank Addario and Matthew Gourlay, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on December 18, 2013, before Hoy, A.C.J.O., Gillese and Strathy, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. In reasons written by Strathy, J.A., the Court released the following judgment on April 8, 2014.