R. v. Bain, (1992) 133 N.R. 1 (SCC)

• Judge: Cory, McLachlin, Stevenson and Iacobucci, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: June 26, 1991
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1992), 133 N.R. 1 (SCC);69 CCC (3d) 481;10 CR (4th) 257;133 NR 1;87 DLR (4th) 449;7 CRR (2d) 193;[1992] 1 SCR 91;[1992] SCJ No 3 (QL);1992 CanLII 111 (SCC);51 OAC 161;15 WCB (2d) 81;JE 92-189

R. v. Bain (1992), 133 N.R. 1 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Craig Alexander Bain (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) and Attorney General of Canada (intervenor)

(21401)

Indexed As: R. v. Bain

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, Gonthier,

Cory, McLachlin, Stevenson and

Iacobucci, JJ.

January 23, 1992.

Summary:

The accused was acquitted of sexual assault by a judge and jury. The Crown appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a decision reported in 31 O.A.C. 357; 47 C.C.C.(3d) 250; 68 C.R.(3d) 50; 45 C.R.R. 193, allowed the appeal, set aside the acquittal and ordered a new trial. The accused appealed. Two constitutional questions were stated.

The Supreme Court of Canada, Gonthier, McLachlin and Iacobucci, JJ., dissenting, allowed the appeal and restored the accused's acquittal.

Civil Rights - Topic 3146

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Jury selection - Section 563(1) and (2) of the 1970 Crim­inal Code (now s. 634(1) and (2)) granted the Crown 48 stand bys and four peremp­tory challenges, while the accused was allowed only four, 12 or 20 peremptory challenges - The Supreme Court of Canada held that these sections created a dis­crepancy favouring the Crown which raised a reasonable apprehension of bias in the selection of a jury - Accordingly, the court held that the sections were contrary to s. 11(d) of the Charter and could not be justified under s. 1 - The court suspended the declaration of invalidity respecting s. 563(2) for six months to give Parliament an opportunity to remedy the situation - See paragraphs 4 to 12, 42 to 63, 88 to 92.

Civil Rights - Topic 4604

Right to counsel - Denial of or interfer­ence with - What constitutes - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8368 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 4908

Presumption of innocence - Circumstances infringing presumption - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3146 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3146 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Exclusion of evidence - The accused was arrested at home and advised of his right to counsel - The accused made inculpatory statements in the police car - Meanwhile, the accused's fa- ther contacted a lawyer, who spoke by telephone to the investigating officer and advised that no statement should be taken from the accused in his absence - Upon asking if his father had called, police answered the accused literally in the nega­tive and interrogated the accused, who gave statements - Stevenson, J., of the Supreme Court of Canada held that the statements given at the station should be excluded - In the circumstances, the police breached their duty to the accused, because his inquiry was tantamount to an assertion by the accused that he wanted counsel - See paragraphs 82 to 87.

Civil Rights - Topic 8380.2

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Declara­tion of statute invalidity - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3146 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4310

Procedure - Jury - General - Empanelling the jury - Stevenson, J., of the Supreme Court of Canada referred to the test for impartiality in the selection of a jury - See paragraphs 40 to 41.

Criminal Law - Topic 4314

Procedure - Jury - General - Stand bys - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3146 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4314

Procedure - Jury - General - Stand bys - Stevenson, J., of the Supreme Court of Canada stated that a juror stood by could still be peremptorily challenged by the Crown or the accused - See paragraph 58.

Criminal Law - Topic 4314

Procedure - Jury - General - Stand bys - Stevenson, J., of the Supreme Court of Canada referred to the origins of the stand by granted to the Crown in the jury selec­tion process - See paragraphs 49 to 51.

Criminal Law - Topic 4320

Procedure - Jury - General - Peremptory challenges - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3146 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4320

Procedure - Jury - General - Peremptory challenges - [See second Criminal Law - Topic 4314 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Grover (1991), 131 N.R. 80 (S.C.C.), reving. 38 O.A.C. 219; 56 C.C.C.(3d) 532 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. Grover (1990), 38 O.A.C. 219; 56 C.C.C.(3d) 532 (C.A.), revd. 131 N.R. 80 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. Logiacco (1984), 2 O.A.C. 177; 11 C.C.C.(3d) 374 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. Pizzacalla (1991), 50 O.A.C. 161 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 5, 62].

R. v. Varga (1985), 7 O.A.C. 350; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 281 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Stoddart (1987), 20 O.A.C. 365; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 351 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 29, 66].

R. v. Rowbotham et al. (1988), 25 O.A.C. 321; 41 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Logan, Logan and Johnson (1988), 30 O.A.C. 321; 46 C.C.C.(3d) 354, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Morin (1890), 18 S.C.R. 407, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Valente, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 673; 64 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 40].

Lippé et autres v. Québec (Procureur gé­néral) et autres, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 114; 128 N.R. 1; 39 Q.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 40].

Committee for Justice and Liberty Foun­dation et al. v. National Energy Board et al., [1978] 1 S.C.R. 369; 9 N.R. 115, refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Johnstone, Johnstone and Goler (1986), 72 N.S.R.(2d) 76; 173 A.P.R. 76; 26 C.C.C.(3d) 401 (S.C.A.D.), refd to. [para. 51].

R. v. Cecchini (1985), 22 C.C.C.(3d) 323 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 51].

R. v. Cloutier, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 709; 28 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. Mason, [1981] Q.B. 881 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. Piraino (1982), 67 C.C.C.(2d) 28 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Favel (1987), 44 Sask.R. 237; 39 C.C.C.(3d) 378 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 66].

R. v. Ross (1986), 53 C.R.(3d) 81 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 66].

R. v. Barrow, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 694; 81 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 77].

R. v. Baig, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 537; 81 N.R. 87; 25 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 84].

Reference Re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266, refd to. [para. 96].

MacKay et al. v. Manitoba et al., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 357; 99 N.R. 116; 61 Man.R.(2d) 270; 61 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 99].

Danson v. Ontario (Attorney General), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1086; 112 N.R. 362; 41 O.A.C. 250, refd to. [para. 99].

R. v. Sherratt, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 509; 122 N.R. 241; 73 Man.R.(2d) 161, refd to. [para. 104].

R. v. Savion and Mizrahi (1980), 52 C.C.C.(2d) 276 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 117].

Boucher v. The Queen, [1955] S.C.R. 16, refd to. [para. 118].

R. v. Stinchcombe (1991), 130 N.R. 277 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 118].

Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Hill (1915), 237 U.S. 208, refd to. [para. 121].

Mansell v. The Queen (1857), 8 El. & Bl. 54; 120 E.R. 20, refd to. [para. 122].

R. v. Bolduc (1986), 4 Q.A.C. 201 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 144].

R. v. Curtis (1989), 74 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 227; 231 A.P.R. 227 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 144].

R. v. Foote (1985), 65 N.B.R.(2d) 444; 167 A.P.R. 444 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 148].

Batson v. Kentucky (1986), 476 U.S. 79, refd to. [para. 151].

Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291; 9 C.R.R. 355; 14 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 41 C.R.(3d) 97; [1984] 6 W.W.R. 577; 33 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193; 27 B.L.R. 297; 84 D.T.C. 6467; 2 C.P.R.(3d) 1; 11 D.L.R.(4th) 641, refd to. [para. 151].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1 [paras. 24, 34, 79, 81, 94]; sect. 7 [paras. 29, 95-96, 152]; sect. 10(b) [paras. 24, 83, 85, 94, 161]; sect. 11(d) [paras. 9, 24, 29, 34, 36, 40, 42, 63, 77-80, 88, 90, 93-96, 103, 152]; sect. 11(f) [para. 104]; sect. 15 [paras. 29, 95].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 520 [para. 25]; sect. 558 [para. 106]; sect. 562 [paras. 25, 34, 94-95, 106]; sect. 563 [paras. 14, 25, 35, 38, 63-65, 67, 78-80, 88, 94-97, 101, 106, 126, 147-149]; sect. 563(1) [paras. 90, 95, 152]; sect. 563(2) [paras. 9, 12, 88, 90, 95, 152]; sect. 563(3) [paras. 88, 95]; sect. 567 [paras. 25, 37, 59, 94, 106]; sect. 567(1) [para. 124]; sect. 567(2) [para. 124]; sect. 570 [paras. 57, 94]; sect. 570(1) [para. 97]; sect. 613(1)(b)(iv) [paras. 30, 35, 155].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 471 [paras. 157-158]; sect. 536(2) [para. 157]; sect. 629 [para. 106]; sect. 633 [paras. 95, 106]; sect. 634 [paras. 14, 34, 38, 63-65, 67, 78-80, 95, 106]; sect. 634(1) [paras. 88, 90, 152]; sect. 634(2) [paras. 9, 12, 88, 90, 152]; sect. 634(3) [para. 88]; sect. 638 [paras. 37, 59, 106]; sect. 641 [para. 58]; sect. 686(1)(b)(iv) [paras. 30, 35, 153-159].

Criminal Code (respecting jurors), an Act to Amend, S.C. 1917, c. 13, sect. 1 [paras. 51, 98, 128].

Criminal Code, S.C. 1892, c. 29, sect. 668(9) [para. 51].

Criminal Justice Act (Eng.), 1988, c. 33, generally [para. 147].

Juries Act (Eng.), 1825, 6 Geo. 4, c. 50, sect. 29 [para. 50].

Juries Act (Eng.), 1974, c. 23, sect. 9, sect. 9(2), sect. 9(4) [para. 122].

Juries Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 242, sect. 6 [para. 99].

Juries Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 226, sect. 12 [para. 99].

Juries Act, S.S. 1980-81, c. J-4.1, sect. 6 [para. 99].

Jurors Act, R.S.Q. 1977, c. J-2, sect. 15 [para. 99].

Jury Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 210, sect. 9 [para. 99].

Jury Act, S.N.B. 1980, c. J-3.1, sect. 13 [para. 99].

Jury Act, S.N. 1980, c. 41, sect. 17 [para. 99].

Jury Act, S.A. 1982, c. J-2.1, sect. 7 [para. 99].

Jury Act, R.S.M. 1987, c. J-30; C.C.S.M., c. J-30, sect. 17 [para. 99].

Jury Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1988, c. J-5, sect. 11 [para. 99].

Ordinance for Inquests (Eng.), 1305, 33 Ed. 1, c. 4, generally [paras. 49, 97].

United States Code, Title 28, sect. 1866(c)(2) [para. 121].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Babcock, Barbara Allen, Voir Dire: Pre­serving "Its Wonderful Power" (1975), 27 Stan. L. Rev. 545, pp. 552-555 [para. 114].

Baldwin, John, and Michael McConville, Jury Trials (1979), pp. 104-105 [para. 142].

Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (Lewis Ed. 1900), vol. 4, pp. 353 [paras. 53, 113]; 354-356, 1738 [paras. 53, 113]; 1739-1742 [para. 51].

Bull, Henry H., The Career Prosecutor in Canada (1962), 53 J. Crim. L.C. & P.S. 89, p. 95 [para. 117].

Canada Law Reform Commission, Report 16, The Jury (1982), pp. 46 [para. 114]; 47 [para. 148].

Canada Law Reform Commission, Work­ing Paper 27, The Jury in Criminal Trials (1980), generally [para. 104].

Devlin, Patrick, Trial By Jury (1966), p. 48 [para. 142].

East, Robert J., Jury Packing: A Thing of the Past? (1985), 48 Mod. L.R. 518, p. 520 [para. 56].

Halsbury's Laws of England (Annual Abridgment 1988), para. 1313 [para. 57].

Hébert, Jean-Claude, Le contrôle judiciaire de certains pouvoirs de la couronne, in Droit pénal-orientations nouvelles (1987), generally [para. 151].

Hilbury, Sir Malcolm, Duty and Art in Advocacy (1946), p. 13 [para. 118].

House of Commons Debates (Aug. 9, 1917), p. 4309 [para. 51].

Jordan, Jury Selection, pp. 49-55 [para. 121].

McEldowney, John F., Stand By For the Crown: An Historical Analysis, [1979] Crim. L.R. 272, generally [para. 51]; p. 272 [para. 57].

Mewett, Alan W., The Jury Stand-By (1988), 30 Crim. L.R. 385, generally [para. 147]; p. 386 [para. 61].

Morgan, Donna C., Controlling Prosecuto­rial Powers-Judicial Review, Abuse of Process and Section 7 of the Charter (1986), 29 Crim. L.Q. 15, generally [para. 151].

Practice Note, [1988] 3 All E.R. 1086 paras. 1, 4 [para. 122].

United Kingdom, Morris Report, Cmnd 2627 (1965), generally [para. 57].

United Kingdom, Roskill Committee, Fraud Trials, HMSO, 1986, para. 7.36 ff. [para. 57].

Vennard and Riley, The Use of Peremp­tory Challenge and Stand By of Jurors and Their Relationship to Trial Outcome, [1988] Crim. L.R. 731, p. 738 [para. 134].

Counsel:

Timothy E. Breen and James C. Fleming, for the appellant;

Jeff Casey and Elizabeth Rennie, for the respondent;

Graham R. Garton, for the intervenor.

Solicitors of Record:

Rosen, Fleming, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant;

Attorney General for Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent;

John C. Tait, Q.C., Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervenor.

This appeal was heard before Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, Gonthier, Cory, McLach­lin, Stevenson and Iacobucci, JJ.A., of the Supreme Court of Canada on June 26, 1991. The decision of the Supreme Court was delivered in both official languages on January 23, 1992, when the following opin­ions were filed:

Cory, J. (Lamer, C.J.C., and La Forest, J., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 13;

Stevenson, J. - see paragraphs 14 to 92;

Gonthier, J., dissenting (McLachlin and Iacobucci, JJ., concurring) - see para­graphs 93 to 163.