R. v. Bowler (R.L.), (1998) 80 O.T.C. 181 (GD)

• Judge: Hill, J.
• Court: Ontario Court of Justice General Division (Canada)
• Case Date: September 08, 1998
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1998), 80 O.T.C. 181 (GD)

R. v. Bowler (R.L.) (1998), 80 O.T.C. 181 (GD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1998] O.T.C. TBEd. NO.079

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Randy L. Bowler (applicant)

(Court File No. CRIMJ(P) 1285/97)

Indexed As: R. v. Bowler (R.L.)

Ontario Court of Justice

General Division

Hill, J.

November 2, 1998.

Summary:

The accused was charged with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm after an October 13, 1996 motor vehicle accident on a highway on-ramp. The accused's vehicle, a 1969 Chevelle Malibu, was a "write-off". The police had the car towed to their compound where it was checked for defects. None capable of causing the accident were found. On October 29, 1996, the police directed a private towing company to tow the car to the towing company's own compound. In November, the accused raised the issue of mechanical or brake malfunction as the cause of the accident. The police informed him of the results of their report. In March 1997, the defence expressed interest in accessing the car for the possibility of independent testing. At some point, the car was transferred to the scrap yard and destroyed, foreclosing the possibility of independent testing. The accused applied for a stay of proceedings, alleging that his car was illegally disposed of and that his fair trial right protected by s. 7 of the Charter had been violated.

The Ontario Court (General Division) dismissed the application. The police acted reasonably in removing the car to the police compound. The police decision to have the car towed to the private compound was not unreasonable. The accused had the necessary information and a reasonable opportunity to undertake independent examination of the car. The accused acknowledged the voluntariness of the statement he gave to police on the date of the accident and took no Charter issue with the eliciting of the statement. In the statement he acknowledged excessive speed and unfamiliarity with the highway on-ramp. This evidence, regardless of braking capacity, would reasonably entitle a jury to find that speed was a contributing cause of the accident which resulted in bodily harm.

Civil Rights - Topic 3128

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Right of accused to obtain information or evidence - See paragraphs 1 to 93.

Civil Rights - Topic 3133

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Right of accused to make full answer and defence - See paragraphs 1 to 93.

Civil Rights - Topic 3161.5

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Causation - De minimus test - See paragraph 93.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Carosella (N.) (1997), 207 N.R. 321; 98 O.A.C. 81; 112 C.C.C.(3d) 289 (S.C.C.), dist. [para. 2].

R. v. Dixon (S.) (1998), 222 N.R. 243; 166 N.S.R.(2d) 241; 498 A.P.R. 241; 122 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 69].

R. v. Chaplin (D.A.) et al., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 727; 178 N.R. 118; 162 A.R. 272; 83 W.A.C. 272; 27 Alta. L.R.(3d) 1; 36 C.R.(4th) 201; 96 C.C.C.(3d) 225; 26 C.R.R.(2d) 189, refd to. [para. 70].

R. v. Stinchcombe, [1995] 1 S.C.R. 754; 178 N.R. 157; 162 A.R. 269; 83 W.A.C. 269; 96 C.C.C.(3d) 318, refd to. [para. 70].

R. v. La (H.K.) (1997), 213 N.R. 1; 200 A.R. 81; 146 W.A.C. 81; 116 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 71].

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; 103 D.L.R.(4th) 678; 21 C.R.(4th) 186; 15 C.R.R.(2d) 193; 45 M.V.R.(2d) 161, refd to. [para. 71].

R. v. Chapin (1983), 7 C.C.C.(3d) 538 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 72].

R. v. Caslake (T.L.) (1998), 221 N.R. 81; 123 Man.R.(2d) 208; 159 W.A.C. 208; 121 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (S.C.C.), dist. [para. 73].

R. v. Mikhail (A.J.), [1998] O.A.C. Uned. 17 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 84].

R. v. Bartels (T.), [1997] O.A.C. Uned. 550 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1998), 227 N.R. 398; 111 O.A.C. 399 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 85].

R. v. Santocono (V.J.) (1996), 91 O.A.C. 26 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 86].

R. v. Murray (S.H.) (1994), 75 O.A.C. 10 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 86].

R. v. Desmond (1988), 88 N.S.R.(2d) 175; 225 A.P.R. 175; 46 C.C.C.(3d) 37 (T.D.), dist. [para. 87].

R. v. Lupien (R.) (1995), 68 Q.A.C. 253 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 89].

R. v. Penney, [1998] H.C.A. 51 (Aust. H.C.), refd to. [para. 90].

R. v. François (L.) (1993), 65 O.A.C. 306; 15 O.R.(3d) 627 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 91].

R. v. D.J.B. (1993), 16 C.R.R.(2d) 381 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 91].

R. v. Ford (1989), 31 O.A.C. 377; 69 C.R.(3d) 92 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 91].

R. v. O'Connor (H.P.) (1995), 191 N.R. 1; 68 B.C.A.C. 1; 112 W.A.C. 1; 103 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 92].

R. v. M.K.M., [1998] O.A.C. Uned. 183 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 93].

R. v. Forward (D.M.) (1998), 110 B.C.A.C. 130; 178 W.A.C. 130 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 93].

R. v. Larocque (1988), 5 M.V.R.(2d) 221 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 93].

R. v. Andrew (R.J.) (1994), 46 B.C.A.C. 299; 75 W.A.C. 299; 91 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 93].

R. v. Pinske (1988), 6 M.V.R.(2d) 19 (B.C.C.A.), affd. [1989] 2 S.C.R. 979; 100 N.R. 399, refd to. [para. 93].

Counsel:

M.E. Cullen, for the respondent;

B.W. Strutt, for the applicant.

This application was heard on May 13, 14 and 20 and September 8, 1998, by Hill, J., of the Ontario Court (General Division), who delivered the following decision on November 2, 1998 at Brampton, Ontario.