R. v. Biscette (S.), (1995) 169 A.R. 81 (CA)

• Judge: Harradence, Côté and O'Leary, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: June 08, 1995
• Citations: (1995), 169 A.R. 81 (CA);1995 ABCA 234;169 AR 81;99 CCC (3d) 326;[1995] CarswellAlta 1028;[1995] AJ No 557 (QL);31 CRR (2d) 38

R. v. Biscette (S.) (1995), 169 A.R. 81 (CA);

    97 W.A.C. 81

MLB headnote and full text

Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) v. Stephen Biscette (appellant)

(Appeal No. 14842)

Indexed As: R. v. Biscette (S.)

Alberta Court of Appeal

Harradence, Côté and O'Leary, JJ.A.

June 8, 1995.

Summary:

The accused was charged with robbery, being masked while committing an indict­able offence and four counts of possession of stolen property. In a judgment reported 150 A.R. 209, the trial judge admitted into evidence for its truth a prior inconsistent statement of a Crown witness. The trial judge subsequently convicted the accused of the six offences. The accused appealed his convictions, claiming that late disclosure by the Crown of police notes and a transcript of police interviews with the Crown witness denied him an opportunity to make full answer and defence. Disclosure was made several days into the trial and the accused was given an adjournment to consider the evidence. No application for a stay or mis­trial was made at trial. The accused also claimed that the trial judge erred in admit­ting into evidence the prior inconsistent statement.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, Harradence, J.A., dissenting in part, dismissed the appeal. The prior inconsistent statement was proper­ly admitted for its truth. The trial judge did not err in finding it both reliable and neces­sary. The court declined to grant a stay of proceedings for late disclosure of informa­tion by the Crown.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 1509

Relationship with client - Tactical deci­sions or errors by counsel - The accused sought, for the first time on appeal, a stay of proceedings for late disclosure by the Crown - The accused's lawyer claimed the accused should not be prejudiced by his "mere slip" in failing to seek Charter relief at trial - The Alberta Court of Appeal stated that it was not sure that a slip occurred, as opposed to a tactical decision - Defence counsel was not incompetent - The court stated that "some arguments made in recent years assume that an accused bears no responsibility for any­thing which his trial counsel says or does. They assume that those two people are as independent as separate parties. I cannot agree. Nor does that assumption become fit merely because a given trial counsel was incompetent, or made a serious mistake." - See paragraphs 31 to 41.

Civil Rights - Topic 8374

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Stay of proceedings - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4505 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8584

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Practice - Time for raising Charter issues - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4505 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4505

Procedure - Trial - Special duties of Crown - Duty to disclose evidence prior to trial - Police disclosed formal written statements by a key Crown witness prior to the preliminary hearing, but had not disclosed police notes and transcript infor­mation respecting the statements until several days into the trial - The accused sought and obtained a 3.5 day adjournment - Neither a stay of proceedings nor a mistrial were requested - On appeal, the accused sought a stay, claiming late dis­closure impaired his right to make full answer and defence - The Alberta Court of Appeal refused a stay - The court noted, inter alia, that it was rare to obtain Charter relief sought for the first time on appeal, the accused provided little or no evidence to establish a Charter breach (late disclosure may have been trivial), the notes and transcripts may have been repetitive of the formal statements, there was insuffi­cient evidence provided to establish preju­dice to the accused's right to a fair trial, the accused got disclosure of all informa­tion and there was insufficient evidence to determine whether he should have received all of the information before the prelimi­nary hearing - The court stated that a stay would be granted only in the clearest cases - An accused aware of nondisclosure was not permitted to sit back and not seek Charter relief until it was too late to rem­edy the situation with a remedy other than a stay - See paragraphs 1 to 45.

Evidence - Topic 1527

Hearsay rule - Exceptions and exclusions - Where admission of hearsay necessary and evidence reliable - [See Evidence - Topic 4751 ].

Evidence - Topic 4751

Witnesses - Examination - Prior incon­sistent statements - Use of - At the ac­cused's preliminary hearing, a key Crown witness testified that the accused admitted committing the offence - At trial, the witness recanted - The trial judge admitted the prior inconsistent statement (prelimi­nary inquiry testimony) for its truth, find­ing the evidence both necessary and reli­able - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that the trial judge did not err - The wit­ness was a good friend of the accused, not a police agent - The witness had no ap­parent reason to lie under oath at the pre­liminary inquiry - The witness was cross-examined by the accused, both at the preliminary hearing and at trial - The evidence was properly admitted for its truth - See paragraphs 46 to 58.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326; 130 N.R. 277; 120 A.R. 161; 8 W.A.C. 161; 68 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. Kutynec (1992), 52 O.A.C. 59; 7 O.R.(3d) 277 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Dwernychuk (M.K.) (1992), 135 A.R. 31; 33 W.A.C. 31; 77 C.C.C.(3d) 385 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Laboucane (D.R.) (1994), 155 A.R. 249; 73 W.A.C. 249 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Guest (J.C.) (1994), 155 A.R. 318; 73 W.A.C. 318 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Robinson (1991), 114 A.R. 345 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Walker (G.B.) (1992), 15 B.C.A.C. 138; 27 W.A.C. 138; 74 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Leibel (R.J.) (1994), 123 Sask.R. 135; 74 W.A.C. 135 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 4].

Gainers v. United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local 280-P and Local 472 (1993), 145 A.R. 79; 55 W.A.C. 79 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 4].

Baron et al. v. Minister of National Rev­enue et al., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 416; 146 N.R. 270; 99 D.L.R.(4th) 350, refd to. [para. 4].

Rio Hotel Ltd. v. Liquor Licensing Board (N.B.), New Brunswick (Attorney General) and Saskatchewan (Attorney General), [1987] 2 S.C.R. 59; 77 N.R. 104; 81 N.B.R.(2d) 328; 205 A.P.R. 328; 44 D.L.R.(4th) 663, refd to. [para. 4].

Danson v. Ontario (Attorney General), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1086; 112 N.R. 362; 41 O.A.C. 250, refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Rain (M.M.) (1994), 157 A.R. 385; 77 W.A.C. 385; 25 Alta. L.R.(3d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Stinchcombe (1994), 149 A.R. 167; 88 C.C.C.(3d) 557 (C.A.), affd. 178 N.R. 157; 162 A.R. 269; 83 W.A.C. 269 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Chaplin (D.A.) (1995), 178 N.R. 118; 162 A.R. 272; 83 W.A.C. 272 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Anutooshkin (H.A.) (1994), 47 B.C.A.C. 302; 76 W.A.C. 302; 92 C.C.C.(3d) 59 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. MacMillan (1978), 23 N.B.R.(2d) 583; 44 A.P.R. 583 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Hamilton (K.W.), [1995] 1 W.W.R. 711; 125 Sask.R. 8; 81 W.A.C. 8 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Chamberlain (1994), 30 C.R.(4th) 275 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Kutynec (1992), 52 O.A.C. 59; 70 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 12 C.R.(4th) 152 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Antinello (J.J.) (1995), 165 A.R. 122; 89 W.A.C. 122 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. T.B. (1994), 23 C.R.R.(2d) 355 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Morin, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 771; 134 N.R. 321; 53 O.A.C. 241; 71 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. S.J.S. (1993), 142 N.B.R.(2d) 157; 364 A.P.R. 157 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. K.G.B., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 740; 148 N.R. 241; 61 O.A.C. 1; 79 C.C.C.(3d) 257, refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Clarke, [1994] O.J. 2953 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. Egger (J.H.), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 451; 153 N.R. 272; 141 A.R. 81; 46 W.A.C. 81; 82 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 86].

R. v. Dersch (W.W.) et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1505; 116 N.R. 340; 43 O.A.C. 256; 36 Q.A.C. 258; [1991] 1 W.W.R. 231; 80 C.R.(3d) 299; 60 C.C.C.(3d) 132; 50 C.R.R. 272; 77 D.L.R.(4th) 473, refd to. [para. 94].

R. v. O'Connor (H.P.) (1994), 42 B.C.A.C. 105; 67 W.A.C. 105; 29 C.R.(4th) 40 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 98].

R. v. Vokey (W.J.) (1992), 102 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 275; 256 A.P.R. 275; 14 C.R.(4th) 311 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 103].

R. v. McKay (T.C.) et al. (1994), 149 A.R. 136; 63 W.A.C. 136 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 104].

R. v. Mills, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 863; 67 N.R. 241; 16 O.A.C. 81; 52 C.R.(3d) 1; 26 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 29 D.L.R.(4th) 161; 21 C.R.R. 76, refd to. [para. 107].

R. v. Garofoli et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1421; 116 N.R. 241; 43 O.A.C. 1; 36 Q.A.C. 161; 60 C.C.C.(3d) 161; 80 C.R.(3d) 317; 50 C.R.R. 206, refd to. [para. 107].

R. v. Richer (R.J.) (1993), 141 A.R. 116; 46 W.A.C. 116; 82 C.C.C.(3d) 385 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 108].

R. v. Garofoli et al. (1988), 27 O.A.C. 1; 41 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 112].

R. v. M.H.C., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 763; 123 N.R. 63; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 4 C.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 114].

R. v. Leduc, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 641, refd to. [para. 123].

R. v. Khan, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 531; 113 N.R. 53; 41 O.A.C. 353; 59 C.C.C.(3d) 92; 79 C.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 133].

R. v. Smith (A.L.), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 915; 139 N.R. 323; 55 O.A.C. 321; 75 C.C.C.(3d) 257, refd to. [para. 133].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 7 [para. 3].

Counsel:

Paul Bourque, for the respondent;

Rupert N. Joshi, for the appellant.

This appeal was heard before Harradence, Côté and O'Leary, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal.

On June 8, 1995, the judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered and the following opinions were filed:

Côté, J.A. (O'Leary, J.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 60;

Harradence, J.A., dissenting in part - see paragraphs 61 to 148.