R. v. Bazinet, (1986) 14 O.A.C. 15 (CA)

JurisdictionOntario
CourtCourt of Appeal (Ontario)
JudgeLacourcière, Cory and Tarnopolsky, JJ.A.
Citation(1986), 14 O.A.C. 15 (CA),1986 CanLII 108 (NS CA),1986 CanLII 108 (ON CA),54 OR (2d) 129,25 CCC (3d) 273,51 CR (3d) 139,[1986] CarswellOnt 107,[1986] OJ No 187 (QL),14 OAC 15,16 WCB 164
Date24 March 1986

R. v. Bazinet (1986), 14 O.A.C. 15 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Bazinet

Indexed As: R. v. Bazinet

Ontario Court of Appeal

Lacourcière, Cory and Tarnopolsky, JJ.A.

March 24, 1986.

Summary:

The accused was charged with first degree murder, contrary to s. 218(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada. A jury found the accused guilty of the included offence of second degree murder. The accused appealed his conviction on the grounds that certain inculpatory statements made by him should have been excluded from the evidence because he was denied his right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Charter of Rights, and that the trial judge was wrong in withdrawing the defence of drunkenness from the jury.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 3604

Detention - What constitutes - Police attended at the accused's residence and advised that they wished to question him respecting a murder - The accused was not then a suspect - The accused voluntarily accompanied them to the station - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the accused was not detained within s. 10(b) of the Charter, because the police made no "demand or direction" on him, he did not submit or acquiesce in a deprivation of his liberty because he reasonably believed he had no choice, he was under no physical restraint and there was no basis to compel his attendance - The court held that neither the coercive atmosphere of the station nor asking the accused to submit his clothing for examination contributed to a finding of detention - See paragraphs 21 to 35.

Civil Rights - Topic 4613

Right to counsel - Requirement of detention - Police attended at an accused's residence and advised that they wished to question him respecting a murder investigation - The accused voluntarily accompanied them to the station where, after some questioning, he gave certain inculpatory statements - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the accused had no right to be informed of his right to counsel prior to being questioned, because he was not detained within s. 10(b) of the Charter - See paragraphs 21 to 35.

Criminal Law - Topic 4356

Procedure - Jury charge - Directions regarding intent or mens rea - Drunkenness - An accused consumed 12 bottles of beer between 1:00 p.m. and the time of a murder (8:30 to 9:30 p.m.) - However, not one witness who observed the accused attested to any degree of drunkenness - All who saw him after the killing testified that he appeared normal - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the trial judge was correct in withdrawing the defence of drunkenness from the jury - See paragraphs 37 to 39.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Therens, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 613; 59 N.R. 122; 40 Sask.R. 122; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 481, appld. [para. 21].

R. v. Esposito (1985), 12 O.A.C. 350, dist. [para. 27].

R. v. Rodenbush and Rodenbush, 14 W.C.B. 327, dist. [para. 32].

Miranda v. Arizona (1966), 384 U.S. 436, refd to. [para. 33].

Oregon v. Mathiason (1977), 429 U.S. 492, refd to. [para. 33].

California v. Beheler (1983), 103 S.Ct. 3517, refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Gorman (1972), 9 C.C.C.(2d) 318 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 10(b) [paras. 1, 18, 21, 33, 35-36].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Shorter Oxford English Dictionary [para. 29].

Webster's New World Dictionary [para. 29].

Ontario Encyclopedic Digest [para. 30].

Counsel:

Marc Rosenberg, for the appellant;

Douglas C. Hunt, Q.C., for the respondent.

This appeal was heard before Lacourcière, Cory and Tarnopolsky, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal on December 3 and 4, 1985. The decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered by Tarnopolsky, J.A., and released on March 24, 1986.

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex
1069 practice notes
  • Eurocopter v. Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Ltd.
    • Canada
    • Federal Court (Canada)
    • January 30, 2012
    ...that come before. Thus, each dependent claim at issue introduces an additional limitation to each preceding claim. For example, claims 15 or 16 include a landing gear according to any of claims 1 to 14, as limited by the further characterization introduced in same (i.e. the said integrated ......
  • Eli Lilly & Co. et al. v. Apotex Inc., (2009) 351 F.T.R. 1 (FC)
    • Canada
    • Federal Court (Canada)
    • November 13, 2008
    ...15 but limit the type of solvents (aromatic or halogenated hydrocarbon and methylene chloride respectively). Claim 26 is dependent on claim 15 or 16 and specifies the acyl group. [169] For reasons already given in respect of claims 18 and 34 of the '536 patent, the Court does not need to de......
  • R. v. T.A.V., (2001) 299 A.R. 96 (CA)
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • October 30, 2001
    ...and first Civil Rights - Topic 1217 ]. Cases Noticed: R. v. Ancelet (1986), 70 A.R. 263 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17]. R. v. Bazinet (1986), 14 O.A.C. 15; 25 C.C.C.(3d) 273 (C.A.), refd to. [para. R. v. Moran (1987), 21 O.A.C. 257; 36 C.C.C.(3d) 225 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18]. R. v. Fash (D.......
  • R. v. Cinous (J.), (2002) 285 N.R. 1 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • March 21, 2002
    ...1, refd to. [para. 169]. R. v. Murray (E.E.) (1994), 73 O.A.C. 321; 93 C.C.C.(3d) 70 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 44]. R. v. Bazinet (1986), 14 O.A.C. 15; 25 C.C.C.(3d) 273 (C.A.), refd to. [para. R. v. Faid, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 265; 46 N.R. 461; 42 A.R. 308, refd to. [para. 169]. R. v. Gee, [1982] ......
  • Get Started for Free
921 cases
  • Eurocopter v. Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Ltd.
    • Canada
    • Federal Court (Canada)
    • January 30, 2012
    ...that come before. Thus, each dependent claim at issue introduces an additional limitation to each preceding claim. For example, claims 15 or 16 include a landing gear according to any of claims 1 to 14, as limited by the further characterization introduced in same (i.e. the said integrated ......
  • Eli Lilly & Co. et al. v. Apotex Inc., (2009) 351 F.T.R. 1 (FC)
    • Canada
    • Federal Court (Canada)
    • November 13, 2008
    ...15 but limit the type of solvents (aromatic or halogenated hydrocarbon and methylene chloride respectively). Claim 26 is dependent on claim 15 or 16 and specifies the acyl group. [169] For reasons already given in respect of claims 18 and 34 of the '536 patent, the Court does not need to de......
  • R. v. T.A.V., (2001) 299 A.R. 96 (CA)
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • October 30, 2001
    ...and first Civil Rights - Topic 1217 ]. Cases Noticed: R. v. Ancelet (1986), 70 A.R. 263 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17]. R. v. Bazinet (1986), 14 O.A.C. 15; 25 C.C.C.(3d) 273 (C.A.), refd to. [para. R. v. Moran (1987), 21 O.A.C. 257; 36 C.C.C.(3d) 225 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18]. R. v. Fash (D.......
  • R. v. Cinous (J.), (2002) 285 N.R. 1 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • March 21, 2002
    ...1, refd to. [para. 169]. R. v. Murray (E.E.) (1994), 73 O.A.C. 321; 93 C.C.C.(3d) 70 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 44]. R. v. Bazinet (1986), 14 O.A.C. 15; 25 C.C.C.(3d) 273 (C.A.), refd to. [para. R. v. Faid, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 265; 46 N.R. 461; 42 A.R. 308, refd to. [para. 169]. R. v. Gee, [1982] ......
  • Get Started for Free
1 firm's commentaries
  • Management Of Multijurisdictional Class Actions And Of Class Actions In Montréal
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • March 6, 2018
    ...of 73 will be divided as follows: Group of 10: in charge of the files before a judgment on the authorization is rendered (they will have 15 or 16 files each on average). Group of 63: in charge of the files after a judgment authorizing a class action has been rendered (one or two files each)......
7 books & journal articles
  • Privacy as an Endangered Species: The False Promise of the Charter of Rights
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Archive Special Lectures 2001. Constitutional and Administrative Law
    • August 31, 2002
    ...brief investi-gatory detention upon reasonable suspicion, see R. v. Simpson (1993), 20 C.R. (4th) 1 (Ont. C.A.). 12 R. v. Bazinet (1986), 25 C.C.C. (3d) 273 (Ont. C.A.); R v. Smith (1986), 25 C.C.C. (3d) 361 (Ont. C.A.). 13 This is because voluntary accompaniment to the police station does ......
  • THE STANDARD OF CARE FOR CHILDREN ENGAGED IN ADULT ACTIVITIES: NOT EXACTLY CHILD'S PLAY.
    • Canada
    • University of British Columbia Law Review Vol. 53 No. 2, December 2020
    • December 1, 2020
    ...of motor vehicles, for example, was thought to be "unrealistic" and "inimical to public safety". When a society permits young people of 15 or 16, Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1970, c. 202, s. 18, the privilege of operating a lethal weapon like an automobile on its highways, it should require......
  • Do age of consent laws decrease teen births?
    • Canada
    • Canadian Journal of Economics No. 55-3, August 2022
    • August 1, 2022
    ...quarter X county or census division X age categories. The sample is restricted to teens aged 14 to 18 at the time of pregnancyfor Canada and 15 or 16 to 18 at the time of the birth for Georgia. ***, ** and * denote statistical signif‌icance at the 1%, 5% and 10% levels,respectively. See tab......
  • Childhood predictors of adult criminality: a meta-analysis drawn from the prospective longitudinal literature.
    • Canada
    • Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice Vol. 50 No. 4, July 2008
    • July 1, 2008
    ...11-14 Follow-up age 32-38 9 Ezell & Cohen (1997) Child factors: Non-community Externalizing sample concerns Male (N = 2200) Initial age 15 or 16 or 17 Follow-up age 24 10 Farrington (2000) Child factors: Community sample Internalizing Male (N = 411) concerns Initial age 8-10 Follow-up F......
  • Get Started for Free
121 provisions
  • STATUTORY ACCIDENT BENEFITS SCHEDULE - EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1, 2010 O. Reg. 34/10
    • Canada
    • Ontario Regulations
    • January 1, 2010
    ...accepts the claim for benefits, the insurer shall, within 30 days of receipt, pay every invoice for goods and services described in section 15 or 16 that are provided in accordance with the Minor Injury Guideline. O. Reg. 34/10, s. 40 (5) An insured person shall submit an amended treatment ......
  • Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.31
    • Canada
    • Ontario Acts
    • January 1, 2000
    ...at risk 21.1 A head may refuse to disclose a record where the disclosure could reasonably be expected to lead to a contravention of section 15 or 16 of the Species Conservation Act, 2025. 2025, c. 11, Sched. 11, s. Section Amendments with date in force (d/m/y) 1997, c. 41, s. 118 (1) - 1/01......
  • GENERAL, O. Reg. 242/08
    • Canada
    • Ontario Regulations
    • January 1, 2008
    ...the following dates, subsections (2), (4), (5) and (6) cease to apply to a person who is carrying out an activity described in paragraph 14, 15 or 16 of subsection (1) and who entered into an agreement with the Minister under subsection (2) with respect to that 1. The day the person gives n......
  • FINANCIAL ACTIVITIES, O. Reg. 610/06
    • Canada
    • Ontario Regulations
    • January 1, 2006
    ...a transfer by-law or otherwise under that Act. O. Reg. 610/06, s. 43 (12). (13) The City shall sell an investment described in paragraph 15 or 16 of section 42 within 90 days after ownership of the investment vests in the City. O. Reg. 610/06, s. 43 (14) Revoked: O. Reg. 297/09, s. 5 (4). I......
  • Get Started for Free