R. v. Borden (J.R.), (1994) 171 N.R. 1 (SCC)

• Judge: Gonthier, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: September 30, 1994
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1994), 171 N.R. 1 (SCC);JE 94-1577;134 NSR (2d) 321;24 WCB (2d) 580;[1994] CarswellNS 26;1994 CanLII 63 (SCC);[1994] 3 SCR 145;119 DLR (4th) 74;383 APR 321;92 CCC (3d) 404;171 NR 1;[1994] SCJ No 82 (QL);24 CRR (2d) 51;33 CR (4th) 147

R. v. Borden (J.R.) (1994), 171 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]

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

Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. Josh Randall Borden (respondent) and Attorney General of Canada (intervenor)

(23747)

Indexed As: R. v. Borden (J.R.)

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, Sopinka,

Gonthier, McLachlin, Iacobucci

and Major, JJ.

September 30, 1994.

Summary:

The accused was convicted of sexual assault on the basis of a D.N.A. typing match between semen found at the assault scene and a blood sample taken from the accused. The trial judge found that the tak­ing of the blood sample constituted a "tech­nical breach" of the accused's s. 8 Charter right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure. However, the evidence was not to be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter, because its admission would not bring the administration of justice into disre­pute. The accused appealed.

The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, Freeman, J.A., dissenting, in a judgment reported 124 N.S.R.(2d) 163; 345 A.P.R. 163, allowed the appeal, set aside the con­viction and declined the Crown's request to order a new trial. The court stated that the taking of the blood sample without statutory authority or informed consent violated the accused's rights under ss. 8, 10(a) and 10(b) of the Charter. The trial judge erred in re­fusing to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2), where admission of the evidence could bring the administration of justice into disrepute. The Crown appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 1404

Security of the person - Law enforcement - Blood tests - An accused detained for sexually assaulting a dancer was also suspected, without his knowledge, of sex­ually assaulting another woman - Police wanted a blood sample to do D.N.A. test­ing to match it with a semen sample on the woman's bed - The accused consented to give a sample (he had no obligation to do so), unaware of its intended use - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal held that the accused's consent was not informed, ac­cordingly, his s. 8 Charter rights were violated - Additionally, the failure to inform the accused of the second investi­gation violated his rights under s. 10(a) (informed promptly of reasons for deten­tion) and s. 10(b) (right to counsel) - The trial judge erred in refusing to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2) - Whether the blood sample was "real" evidence or not, the accused was conscripted against him­self and use of the evidence would render the trial unfair, notwithstanding the D.N.A. evidence established the accused's guilt - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that the accused's s. 8, 10(a) and 10(b) rights were violated and that the evidence should be excluded under s. 24(2).

Civil Rights - Topic 3608

Detention and imprisonment - Detention - Right to be informed of reasons for - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1404 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 4604

Right to counsel - Denial of - What con­stitutes - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1404 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1404 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Dyment, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 417; 89 N.R. 249; 73 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 13; 229 A.P.R. 13; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 244; 10 M.V.R.(2d) 1; 66 C.R.(3d) 348; 55 D.L.R.(4th) 503, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Mellenthin, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 615; 144 N.R. 50; 135 A.R. 1; 33 W.A.C. 1; 16 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Wills (1992), 52 O.A.C. 321; 12 C.R.(4th) 58 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

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. 23].

R. v. Colarusso, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 20; 162 N.R. 321; 69 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 23].

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. [para. 29].

R. v. Wiley (R.W.), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 263; 158 N.R. 321; 34 B.C.A.C. 135; 56 W.A.C. 135; 84 C.C.C.(3d) 161, refd to. [para. 29].

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. [para. 32].

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. [para. 32].

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.(2d) 315, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Duguay, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 93; 91 N.R. 201; 31 O.A.C. 177, refd to. [para. 34].

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. 38].

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; 37 C.R.R. 369; 67 C.R.(3d) 209, refd to. [para. 46].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 8, sect. 10(a), sect. 10(b), sect. 24(2) [para. 1].

Counsel:

William D. Delaney and Robert Hagell, for the appellant;

Frank E. DeMont and Katherine A. Briand, for the respondent;

S.R. Fainstein, Q.C., and John J. Walsh, for the intervener.

Solicitors of Record:

The Attorney General of Nova Scotia, Halifax, Nova Scotia, for the appel­lant;

Frank E. DeMont, New Glasgow, Nova Scotia, for the respondent;

The Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervener.

This appeal was heard on June 16, 1994, before Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, Sopinka, Gonthier, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official lan­guages on September 30, 1994, when the following opinions were filed:

Iacobucci, J. (La Forest, Sopinka, Gonthier and Major, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 41;

Lamer, C.J.C. (Gonthier, J., concurring) - see paragraphs 42 to 53;

McLachlin, J. - see paragraphs 54 to 58.