R. v. Baldree (C.), (2012) 287 O.A.C. 327 (CA)

• Judge: Feldman, Blair and Watt, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: July 26, 2011
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (2012), 287 O.A.C. 327 (CA);2012 ONCA 138

R. v. Baldree (C.) (2012), 287 O.A.C. 327 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2012] O.A.C. TBEd. MR.003

Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) v. Christopher Baldree (appellant)

(52415; 2012 ONCA 138)

Indexed As: R. v. Baldree (C.)

Ontario Court of Appeal

Feldman, Blair and Watt, JJ.A.

March 2, 2012.

Summary:

The police arrested the accused on drug charges and seized his cell phone. A police officer answered a call made to the accused's phone. The caller wanted to buy and have delivered to a local address an ounce of "weed". Posing as the accused's successor, the officer agreed to deliver the drugs at the price the accused usually charged, but didn't make the delivery. At trial, the evidence adduced included the officer's version of the conversation with the unknown caller. The accused was convicted. He appealed, raising issues as to the admissibility and judge's use of the officer's evidence about the call to buy drugs (i.e., hearsay issues).

The Ontario Court of Appeal, Watt, J.A., dissenting, allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.

Criminal Law - Topic 5209

Evidence and witnesses - Admissibility and relevancy - Prejudicial evidence - [See Evidence - Topic 1504 ].

Evidence - Topic 1026

Relevant facts - Relevance and materiality - Admissibility - Prejudicial evidence - [See Evidence - Topic 1504 ].

Evidence - Topic 1504

Hearsay rule - General principles and definitions - What constitutes hearsay - While the accused was under arrest on drug charges, a police officer answered the accused's cell phone and discussed a drug purchase with an unknown caller - At trial, the trial judge admitted evidence of the call as circumstantial evidence of drug trafficking - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred when he admitted the evidence of the single call on the basis that it was not hearsay and not being admitted for the truth of its contents (i.e., the evidence was hearsay thus requiring an exception to justify its reception) - However, had the judge treated the evidence as hearsay, the single call would not have met the necessity/reliability test - In any event, before admitting the evidence of one anonymous call, the trial judge should have considered whether its probative value outweighed its prejudicial effect - See paragraphs 114 to 163.

Evidence - Topic 1527

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

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Kearley, [1992] 2 A.C. 228; 136 N.R. 81 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 37, 125].

R. v. Edwards (C.) (1994), 73 O.A.C. 55; 19 O.R.(3d) 239 (C.A.), affd. [1996] 1 S.C.R. 128; 192 N.R. 81; 88 O.A.C. 321 refd to. [paras. 38, 133].

R. v. Nguyen (B.H.) et al. (2003), 188 B.C.A.C. 218; 308 W.A.C. 218; 180 C.C.C.(3d) 347 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Ly (C.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 698; 219 N.R. 237; 206 A.R. 309; 156 W.A.C. 309, refd to. [para. 38].

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. 47].

R. v. Wilson (R.) (1996), 90 O.A.C. 386; 29 O.R.(3d) 97 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 57, 136].

R. v. Lucia (K.F.), [2010] O.A.C. Uned. 357; 2010 ONCA 533, refd to. [paras. 58, 139].

R. v. Cook (1979), 46 C.C.C.(2d) 318 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 59].

R. v. Nguyen (B.H.) et al. (2003), 188 B.C.A.C. 218; 308 W.A.C. 218; 180 C.C.C. (3d) 347; 2003 BCCA 556, refd to. [para. 59].

R. v. Singh, [2006] E.W.C.A. Crim 660, refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Twist, [2011] E.W.C.A. Crim 1143, refd to. [para. 62].

Walton v. The Queen (1989), 166 C.L.R. 283 (Aust. High Ct.), refd to. [para. 63].

Bannon v. The Queen (1995), 185 C.L.R. 1 (Aust. High Ct.), refd to. [para. 63].

Lord Advocate's Reference (No. 1 of 1992), 1992 S.C.C.R. 724, refd to. [para. 75].

R. v. Owad (1951), 102 C.C.C. 155 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 84].

R. v. Fialkow, [1963] 2 C.C.C. 42 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [paras. 84, 134].

R. v. Owad (1951), 102 C.C.C. 155 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [paras. 89, 130].

R. v. Wray, [1971] S.C.R. 272, refd to. [para. 89].

R. v. Khan (M.A.), [2001] 3 S.C.R. 823; 279 N.R. 79; 160 Man.R.(2d) 161; 262 W.A.C. 161; 2001 SCC 86, refd to. [para. 99].

R. v. O'Brien (M.D.), [2011] 2 S.C.R. 485; 417 N.R. 52; 304 N.S.R.(2d) 383; 960 A.P.R. 383; 2011 SCC 29, refd to. [para. 99].

R. v. Côté (A.), [2011] 3 S.C.R. 215; 421 N.R. 112; 2011 SCC 46, refd to. [para. 99].

R. v. Vetrovec; R. v. Gaja, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 811; 41 N.R. 606, refd to. [para. 106].

R. v. Potvin, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 525; 93 N.R. 42; 21 Q.A.C. 258, refd to. [para. 107].

R. v. Bevan and Griffith, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 599; 154 N.R. 245; 64 O.A.C. 165, refd to. [para. 107].

R. v. Brooks (F.A.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 237; 250 N.R. 103; 129 O.A.C. 205; 2000 SCC 11, refd to. [para. 107].

R. v. Khelawon (R.), [2006] 2 S.C.R. 787; 355 N.R. 267; 220 O.A.C. 338; 2006 SCC 57, refd to. [paras. 115. 155].

R. v. J.M.H., [2011] 3 S.C.R. 197; 421 N.R. 76; 283 O.A.C. 379; 2011 SCC 45, refd to. [para. 149].

R. v. Abbey, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 24; 43 N.R. 30; [1983] 1 W.W.R. 251; 39 B.C.L.R. 201; 29 C.R.(3d) 193; 68 C.C.C.(2d) 394; 138 D.L.R.(3d) 202, refd to. [para. 157].

R. v. Mapara (S.) et al., [2005] 1 S.C.R. 358; 332 N.R. 244; 211 B.C.A.C. 1; 349 W.A.C. 1; 2005 SCC 23, refd to. [para. 158].

R. v. Seaboyer and Gayme, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 577; 128 N.R. 81; 48 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 160].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Birch, Criminal Justice Act 2003 (IV) Hearsay: Same Old Story, Same Old Song?, [2004] Crim. L. R. 556, p. 564. [para. 51, footnote 1].

Cross, What should be done about the Rule Against Hearsay, [1965] Crim. L. Rev. 68, 82 [para. 157, footnote 4].

Dennis, Ian, The Law of Evidence (2nd Ed. 2002), p. 569 [para. 76].

Hill, S. Casey, Tanovich, David M., and Strezos, Louis P., McWilliams' Canadian Criminal Evidence - see McWilliams, Peter K., Canadian Criminal Evidence.

Koch, Frederick W. J., "The Hearsay Rule's True Raison d'Être: Its Implications for the New Principled Approach to Admitting Hearsay Evidence (2005-2006) 37 Ottawa L. Rev. 249, para. 26 [para. 151].

McCormick on Evidence (6th Ed. 2006), pp. 125, §245 [para. 43]; 128, 129 §246 [para. 66].

McWilliams, Peter K., Canadian Criminal Evidence (4th Ed.) (2011 Looseleaf Update), p. 7-4 [para. 151].

United Kingdom, Law Commission Report No. 245, Evidence in Criminal Proceedings: Hearsay and Related Topics, Cm. 3670 (1997), para. 7.7 [para. 51, footnote 2].

Williams, C.R., Implied Assertions in Criminal Cases, (2006), 32 Monash U.L. Rev. 47, p. 64 [para. 64].

Zuckerman, Adrian, Criminal Evidence (2004), p. 590 [para. 76].

Counsel:

Michael Davies, for the appellant;

Brian G. Puddington, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on July 26, 2011, before Feldman, Blair and Watt, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The decision of the court was released on March 2, 2012, including the following opinions:

Watt, J.A., dissenting - see paragraphs 1 to 113;

Feldman, J.A. - see paragraphs 114 to 149;

Blair, J.A., concurring with Feldman, J.A. - see paragraphs 150 to 163.