R. v. Bartle (K.), (1994) 172 N.R. 1 (SCC)

• Judge: Iacobucci and Major, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: September 29, 1994
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1994), 172 N.R. 1 (SCC);19 OR (3d) 802;[1994] 3 SCR 173;1994 CanLII 64 (SCC);118 DLR (4th) 83;33 CR (4th) 1;92 CCC (3d) 289;172 NR 1;[1994] CarswellOnt 100;AZ-94111089;JE 94-1528;[1994] SCJ No 74 (QL);[1994] ACS no 74;23 CRR (2d) 193;24 WCB (2d) 539;6 MVR (3d) 1;74 OAC 161

R. v. Bartle (K.) (1994), 172 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]

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

Kenneth Bartle (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent)

(23623)

Indexed As: R. v. Bartle (K.)

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé,

Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin,

Iacobucci and Major, JJ.

September 29, 1994.

Summary:

The accused was arrested for impaired driving after he failed a roadside breath screening test. He was informed of his Charter rights and taken to the police station where he was further cautioned and given a breathalyzer demand. At no time was he told that 24 hour preliminary legal advice was available from duty counsel by dialling a 1-800 (toll-free) number. The accused did not contact a lawyer.

The Ontario Provincial Court, per Perozak, P.C.J., convicted the accused of having care and control of a motor vehicle while having an excessive blood-alcohol content (Crimi­nal Code, s. 253(b)). The accused appealed.

The Ontario Court (General Division), per Cavarzan, J., in a decision reported (1992), 41 M.V.R.(2d) 266, allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction. The court held that the accused's rights under s. 10(b) of the Charter had been infringed and the evidence of the breathalyzer technician and an in­criminatory statement given to police by the accused ought to be excluded (Charter, s. 24(2)). The Crown appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a decision reported 63 O.A.C. 109, allowed the Crown's appeal and restored the conviction, holding that there was no need to routinely advise of the availability of counsel through the 1-800 number. The accused appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, L'Heureux-Dubé and Gonthier, JJ., dissent­ing, allowed the appeal, quashed the convic­tion and entered an acquittal. The court held that the accused's right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Charter was infringed, and that, having regard to all the circumstances, the impugned evidence should be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

Civil Rights - Topic 4601

Right to counsel - General - The Supreme Court of Canada summarized the basic principles which have developed with respect to the right to counsel under the Charter, including the purpose of s. 10(b), the duties imposed by s. 10(b) and the implications and aftermath of the R. v. Brydges case decided earlier by the court - See paragraphs 15 to 33 - The court stated, inter alia, that "a detainee is entitled under the information component of s. 10(b) of the Charter to be advised of whatever system for free, preliminary legal advice exists in the jurisdiction and of how such advice can be accessed (e.g., by calling a 1-800 number, or being provided with a list of telephone numbers for law­yers acting as duty counsel)" - See para­graph 33.

Civil Rights - Topic 4602

Right to counsel - Denial of - Evidence taken inadmissible - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the application of s. 24(2) of the Charter (i.e., the exclusion of evidence provision) in cases where evi­dence has been obtained following a vio­lation of the right to counsel (s. 10(b)) - The court discussed who has the burden of establishing that evidence should be excluded under s. 24(2) - See paragraphs 45 to 56.

Civil Rights - Topic 4602

Right to counsel - Denial of - Evidence taken inadmissible - The Supreme Court of Canada noted that one issue that arises in cases where s. 10(b) has been breached and there is a question of exclusion of evidence under s. 24(2) is whether the accused would have acted any differently if there had been no violation of his right to counsel - The court stated, inter alia, that "... the Crown should bear the legal burden (the burden of persuasion) of es­tablishing, on the evidence, that the s. 24(2) applicant would not have acted any differently had his s. 10(b) rights been fully respected, and that, as a consequence, the evidence would have been obtained irrespective of the s. 10(b) breach" - See paragraph 52.

Civil Rights - Topic 4602

Right to counsel - Denial of - Evidence taken inadmissible - The police obtained an incriminating statement from the accused (i.e., that he had five or six beers that evening) and two failed breathalyzer tests without informing the accused of the availability of a 24 hour toll-free duty counsel telephone line or of the "duty counsel" service - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the police violated the accused's right to counsel contrary to s. 10(b) of the Charter for not adequately informing him of his right to counsel - The admission of the breathalyzer results and the self-incriminatory statement obtained contrary to s. 10(b) would affect the fairness of the trial - Exclusion of the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, in this case, was in the long-term interests of the administration of justice - See para­graphs 45 to 68.

Civil Rights - Topic 4602

Right to counsel - Denial of - Evidence taken inadmissible - The Supreme Court of Canada noted that certain courts had accepted the following argument - "... Because the breathalyzer evidence was statutorily compellable whether or not the appellant spoke to counsel, it could not have affected the fairness of the trial and, therefore, should be admitted under s. 24(2) of the Charter" - The Supreme Court of Canada rejected this line of argu­ment - See paragraphs 57 to 64 - The court, per Lamer, C.J.C., stated that "I am ... not prepared to hold, ipso facto, either that breathalyzer evidence in the impaired driving context does not qualify as self-incriminating evidence, or, if it does, that its admission does not affect the fairness of a trial" - See paragraph 64.

Civil Rights - Topic 4604

Right to counsel - Denial of - What con­stitutes - Bartle was arrested, cautioned, taken into custody, and given a breathalyzer demand - He was not told of the 24 hour 1-800 toll-free duty counsel line or of the "duty counsel" service - No lawyer was contacted - He took the breathalyzer test - Convicted of impaired driving - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the accused's s. 10(b) Charter rights were violated and the evidence should be excluded (s. 24(2)) - The police failed to convey the necessary sense of immediacy and universal availability of legal assistance - The accused should have been informed of the 1-800 number, or at least the number's existence, when he was arrested at the roadside, even though no telephones were available - Further, coun­sel rights were not waived.

Civil Rights - Topic 4608

Right to counsel - Right to be advised of - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4601 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 4609

Right to counsel - Duty of authority to explain right to counsel - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4601 and Civil Rights - Topic 4604 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 4610

Right to counsel - Impaired driving - Demand for breath sample - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4601 and Civil Rights - Topic 4604 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 4612

Right to counsel - Waiver - The Supreme Court of Canada, per Lamer, C.J.C., stated that "although detainees can waive their s. 10(b) rights, valid waivers of the informational component of s. 10(b) will, in my view, be rare" - See paragraph 38 - The court thereafter discussed what would constitute a valid waiver - See paragraphs 38 to 41 - The court stated, inter alia, that "... the validity of waivers of the informational component should only be recognized in cases where it is clear that the detainee already fully understands his or her s. 10(b) rights, fully understands the means by which they can be exercised, and adverts to those rights. ..." - See paragraph 41.

Civil Rights - Topic 4612

Right to counsel - Waiver - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4604 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 4617.1

Right to counsel - Notice - Sufficiency of - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4601 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - [See all Civil Rights - Topic 4602 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 1379

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Breathalyzer - Admissibility where coun­sel denied - [See third and fourth Civil Rights - Topic 4602 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Pozniak (W.) (1994), 172 N.R. 72; 74 O.A.C. 232 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 1].

R. v. Harper (1994), 172 N.R. 91; 97 Man.R.(2d) 1; 79 W.A.C. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 1].

R. v. Matheson (R.N.) (1994), 172 N.R. 108; 123 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 271; 382 A.P.R. 271 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 1].

R. v. Prosper (1994), 172 N.R. 161; 133 N.S.R.(2d) 321; 380 A.P.R. 321 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 1].

R. v. Brydges, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 190; 103 N.R. 282; 104 A.R. 124; 53 C.C.C.(3d) 330; 74 C.R.(3d) 129; [1990] 2 W.W.R. 220; 71 Alta. L.R.(2d) 145, appld. [paras. 6, 73, 83].

R. v. Anderson (1984), 2 O.A.C. 258; 10 C.C.C.(3d) 417 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Parks (1988), 33 C.R.R. 1 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Strachan, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 980; 90 N.R. 273; 46 C.C.C.(3d) 479; 67 C.R.(3d) 87; 56 D.L.R.(4th) 673; 37 C.R.R. 335; [1989] 1 W.W.R. 385, refd to. [paras. 12, 83].

R. v. Manninen, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1233; 76 N.R. 198; 21 O.A.C. 192; 34 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 41 D.L.R.(4th) 301; 58 C.R.(3d) 97, refd to. [paras. 16, 83].

R. v. Hebert, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 151; 110 N.R. 1; [1990] 5 W.W.R. 1; 57 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 77 C.R.(3d) 145; 49 C.R.R. 114; 47 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Clarkson, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 383; 66 N.R. 114; 69 N.B.R.(2d) 40; 177 A.P.R. 40; 50 C.R.(3d) 289; 25 C.C.C.(3d) 207; 26 D.L.R.(4th) 493; 19 C.R.R. 209, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Evans, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 869; 124 N.R. 278; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 4 C.R.(4th) 144; 3 C.R.R. 315, refd to. [paras. 17, 83].

R. v. Tremblay, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 435; 79 N.R. 153; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 565; 45 D.L.R.(4th) 445; 60 C.R.(3d) 59; 32 C.R.R. 381; 2 M.V.R.(2d) 289; 25 O.A.C. 93, refd to. [paras. 18, 83].

R. v. Black, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 138; 98 N.R. 281; 93 N.S.R.(2d) 35; 242 A.P.R. 35; 50 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 70 C.R.(3d) 97; 47 C.R.R. 171, refd to. [paras. 18, 83].

R. v. Dubois, [1990] R.J.Q. 681; 27 Q.A.C. 241; 54 C.C.C.(3d) 166 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Baig, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 537; 81 N.R. 87; 25 O.A.C. 81; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 181, refd to. [paras. 19, 83].

R. v. Smith (N.M.), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 714; 122 N.R. 203; 104 N.S.R.(2d) 233; 283 A.P.R. 233; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 313, refd to. [paras. 20, 83].

R. v. Korponey, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 41; 44 N.R. 103; 26 C.R.(3d) 343; 132 D.L.R.(3d) 354; 65 C.C.C.(2d) 65, refd to. [para. 38].

Korponay v. Canada (Attorney General) - see R. v. Korponey.

R. v. Therens, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 613; 59 N.R. 122; 40 Sask.R. 122; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 655; [1985] 4 W.W.R. 286; 32 M.V.R. 153; 45 C.R.(3d) 97; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [paras. 46, 83].

R. v. L.R.I. and E.T., [1993] 4 S.C.R. 504; 159 N.R. 363; 37 B.C.A.C. 48; 60 W.A.C. 48; 26 C.R.(4th) 119, refd to. [paras. 47, 83].

R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276; 56 C.R.(3d) 193; [1987] 3 W.W.R. 699; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 508; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 28 C.R.R. 122; 13 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [paras. 49, 92].

R. v. Simmons, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 495; 89 N.R. 1; 30 O.A.C. 241; 66 C.R.(3d) 297; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 296; 38 C.R.R. 252; 18 C.E.R. 227; 55 D.L.R.(4th) 673; 67 O.R.(2d) 63n, refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Sanelli, Duarte and Fasciano, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 30; 103 N.R. 86; 37 O.A.C. 322; 53 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 65 D.L.R.(4th) 240; 71 O.R.(2d) 575; 74 C.R.(3d) 281; 45 C.R.R. 278, refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Duarte - see R. v. Sanelli, Duarte and Fasciano.

R. v. Greffe, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 755; 107 N.R. 1; 107 A.R. 1; 55 C.C.C.(3d) 161; 75 C.R.(3d) 257; 46 C.R.R. 1; [1990] 3 W.W.R. 577; 73 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97, refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Leclair and Ross, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 3; 91 N.R. 81; 31 O.A.C. 321; 46 C.C.C.(3d) 129; 67 C.R.(3d) 209, refd to. [paras. 53, 83].

R. v. Elshaw, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 24; 128 N.R. 241; 3 B.C.A.C. 81; 7 W.A.C. 81; 67 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 59 B.C.L.R.(2d) 143, refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. Schmautz, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 398; 106 N.R. 81; 53 C.C.C.(3d) 556; 75 C.R.(3d) 129; 45 C.R.R. 245; 44 B.C.L.R.(2d) 273, refd to. [paras. 55, 83].

R. v. Mohl, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1389; 95 N.R. 381; 77 Sask.R. 35; 47 C.C.C.(3d) 575; [1989] 5 W.W.R. 66, refd to. [para. 56].

R. v. Jackson (G.G.) (1993), 66 O.A.C. 64; 15 O.R.(3d) 709 (C.A.), disagreed with. [para. 58].

R. v. Mellenthin, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 615; 144 N.R. 50; 135 A.R. 1; 33 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [paras. 72, 99].

R. v. Beare; R. v. Higgins, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 387; 88 N.R. 205; 71 Sask.R. 1; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 57; [1989] 1 W.W.R. 97; 66 C.R.(3d) 97, refd to. [paras. 73, 90].

R. v. Debot, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1140; 102 N.R. 161; 37 O.A.C. 1; 52 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 73 C.R.(3d) 129; 45 C.R.R. 49, refd to. [para. 73].

R. v. Smith (J.L.), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 368; 99 N.R. 372; [1989] 6 W.W.R. 289; 39 B.C.L.R.(2d) 145; 71 C.R.(3d) 129; 61 D.L.R.(4th) 462; 50 C.C.C.(3d) 308, refd to. [para. 83].

R. v. Grant, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 139; 130 N.R. 250; 93 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 181; 292 A.P.R. 181; 67 C.C.C.(3d) 268, refd to. [para. 83].

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. 90].

R. v. Wholesale Travel Group Inc. and Chedore, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 154; 130 N.R. 1; 49 O.A.C. 161; 67 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 8 C.R.(4th) 145, refd to. [para. 90].

R. v. Creighton, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 3; 157 N.R. 1; 65 O.A.C. 321; 83 C.C.C.(3d) 346, refd to. [para. 90].

R. v. Finlay, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 103; 156 N.R. 374; 113 Sask.R. 241; 52 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 90].

R. v. Valente, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 673; 64 N.R. 1; 14 O.A.C. 79; 49 C.R.(3d) 97; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 90].

R. v. Lyons, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 309; 80 N.R. 161; 82 N.S.R.(2d) 271; 207 A.P.R. 271; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 90].

Thomson Newspapers Ltd. v. Director of Investigation and Research, Combines Investigation Act et al., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 425; 106 N.R. 161; 39 O.A.C. 161; 54 C.C.C.(3d) 417; 76 C.R.(3d) 129; 67 D.L.R.(4th) 161; 29 C.P.R.(3d) 97; 47 C.R.R. 1, refd to. [para. 90].

Dehghani v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 1053; 150 N.R. 241; 101 D.L.R.(4th) 654; 10 Admin. L.R.(2d) 1; 20 C.R.(4th) 34; 18 Imm. L.R.(2d) 245; 14 C.R.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 90].

R. v. D.O.L., [1993] 4 S.C.R. 419; 161 N.R. 1; 88 Man.R.(2d) 241; 51 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 90].

R. v. Levogiannis, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 475; 160 N.R. 371; 67 O.A.C. 321; 25 C.R.(4th) 325; 85 C.C.C.(3d) 327, refd to. [para. 90].

R. v. Finta, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 701; 165 N.R. 1; 70 O.A.C. 241; 88 C.C.C.(3d) 417; 112 D.L.R.(4th) 513, refd to. [para. 90].

R. v. Prosper (1992), 113 N.S.R.(2d) 156; 309 A.P.R. 156 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 93].

R. v. Colarusso, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 20; 162 N.R. 321; 69 O.A.C. 81; 87 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 96].

R. v. Thomsen, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 640; 84 N.R. 347; 27 O.A.C. 85; 63 C.R.(3d) 1; 40 C.C.C.(3d) 411; 4 M.V.R.(2d) 185; 32 C.R.R. 257, refd to. [para. 97].

R. v. Seo (1986), 13 O.A.C. 359; 25 C.C.C.(3d) 385 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 97].

R. v. Hufsky, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 621; 84 N.R. 365; 27 O.A.C. 103; 40 C.C.C.(3d) 398; 63 C.R.(3d) 14; 4 M.V.R.(2d) 170; 32 C.R.R. 193, refd to. [para. 97].

R. v. Ladouceur, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1257; 108 N.R. 171; 40 O.A.C. 1; 77 C.R.(3d) 110; 56 C.C.C.(3d) 22; 21 M.V.R.(2d) 165, refd to. [para. 98].

R. v. Wilson, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1291; 108 N.R. 207; 107 A.R. 321; 56 C.C.C.(3d) 142, refd to. [para. 98].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 7 [para. 90]; sect. 8 [para. 50]; sect. 10(b) [para. 15 et seq.]; sect. 11(d) [para. 90]; sect. 24(2) [para. 46 et seq.].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 253 [para. 60]; sect. 253(b) [para. 3]; sect. 254(3)(a), sect. 254(5) [para. 58].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Kirewskie, Cassandra, Update: R. v. Colarusso (1994), 4 N.J.C.L. 223, p. 230 [para. 96].

Moore, Kathryn, Police Implementation of Supreme Court of Canada Charter Deci­sions: An Empirical Study (1992), 30 Osgoode Hall L.J. 547, pp. 564 [para. 30]; 565 [paras. 30, 32]; 566 [paras. 30, 31]; 567 [para. 30].

Prairie Research Associates, Duty Counsel Systems: Summary Report (April 1993), generally [para. 29]; p. 35 [para. 32].

Prairie Research Associates, Duty Counsel Systems: Technical Report (April 1993), p. 3-4 [para. 29].

Sopinka, John, Lederman, Sydney N., and Bryant, Alan W., The Law of Evidence in Canada (1992), p. 397 [para. 50].

Counsel:

Alan D. Gold, for the appellant;

Ian R. Smith, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Gold & Fuerst, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant;

Attorney General of Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on March 2 and 3, 1994, before Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision of the court was delivered in both official languages, on September 29, 1994, including the following opinions:

Lamer, C.J.C. (Sopinka, Cory, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., concurring) - see para­graphs 1 to 70;

La Forest, J., concurring - see para­graphs 71 to 74;

McLachlin, J., concurring - see para­graphs 75 to 81;

L'Heureux-Dubé, J., dissenting - see paragraphs 82 to 102;

Gonthier, J., dissenting - see paragraphs 103 to 105.