R. v. Buric (G.J.) et al., (1996) 90 O.A.C. 321 (CA)

• Judge: Labrosse, Weiler and Laskin, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: May 09, 1996
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1996), 90 O.A.C. 321 (CA);1996 CanLII 1525 (ON CA);28 OR (3d) 737;106 CCC (3d) 97;48 CR (4th) 149;[1996] CarswellOnt 1592;[1996] OJ No 1657 (QL);31 WCB (2d) 41;36 CRR (2d) 62;90 OAC 321

R. v. Buric (G.J.) (1996), 90 O.A.C. 321 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. George Jure Buric and John Steven Parsniak (respondents)

(C15081/2)

Indexed As: R. v. Buric (G.J.) et al.

Ontario Court of Appeal

Labrosse, Weiler and Laskin, JJ.A.

May 9, 1996.

Summary:

The two accused were acquitted of first degree murder after the trial judge excluded the Crown's chief witness from testifying on the ground that his evidence was tainted and that allowing him to testify would compro­mise the right to a fair trial (Charter, s. 7). The witness had been shown statements of other witnesses before giving his statement implicating the accused. The defence ob-jected that the witness's evidence would be tailored to be consistent with the other evi­dence. The Crown appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, Laskin, J.A., dissenting, allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial. The trial judge erred in excluding the witness from testifying and in prema­turely concluding that the fairness of the trial had been affected. The trial judge erred in concluding that whether there was witness tainting rendering the trial unfair was a question of admissibility. It was the jury's function to weigh the evidence and decide its ultimate reliability.

Criminal Law - Topic 5202

Evidence and witnesses - Admissibility - Whether relevant and material - The Crown's key witness in a murder trial was shown statements by other witnesses before giving his statement implicating the accused - The witness, originally charged in the murder, pleaded guilty to a lesser offence in exchange for his testimony - The accused argued that the witness's evidence would be tailored to fit the other evidence - The trial judge ruled that the witness's evidence was tainted and permit­ting him to testify would render the trial unfair (Charter, s. 7) - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in precluding the witness from testifying and in prematurely ruling on trial fairness - The proposed evidence was relevant and material - It was for the jury to weigh the evidence in light of all of the circum­stan-ces and to determine its reliability - The jury could be alerted to the absence of a pre-tainting statement, the similarities between the evidence of the witness and others, the witness's criminal record and his favourable treatment by the authorities - Whether there existed tainted evidence that would render the trial unfair was a question of weight for the jury, not a question of admissibility for the trial judge - See paragraphs 1 to 51.

Evidence - Topic 256

Inferences and weight of evidence - Weight - Reliability - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5202 ].

Evidence - Topic 1025

Relevant facts - Relevance and materiality - Admissibility - Unfairness - [See Cri­minal Law - Topic 5202 ].

Evidence - Topic 4045

Witnesses - Interference with - Tainted evidence - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5202 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Mezzo, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 802; 68 N.R. 1; 43 Man.R.(2d) 161; 27 C.C.C.(3d) 97, refd to. [paras. 17, 40].

United States of America v. Shephard, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 1067; 9 N.R. 215; 30 C.C.C.(2d) 424; 70 D.L.R.(3d) 136; 34 C.R.N.S. 207, refd to. [paras. 17, 68].

R. v. Monteleone, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 154; 78 N.R. 377; 23 O.A.C. 241; 35 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Xenos (J.) (1991), 43 Q.A.C. 212; 70 C.C.C.(3d) 362 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Jewitt, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 128; 61 N.R. 159; [1985] 6 W.W.R. 127; 21 C.C.C.(3d) 7; 20 D.L.R.(4th) 651; 47 C.R.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Mack, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 903; 90 N.R. 173; 44 C.C.C.(3d) 513; 67 C.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Naoufal (N.) (1994), 70 O.A.C. 214; 18 O.R.(3d) 302 (C.A.), affd. [1994] 3 S.C.R. 1020; 197 N.R. 161; 90 O.A.C. 346, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Harrer (H.M.) (1995), 186 N.R. 329; 64 B.C.A.C. 161; 105 W.A.C. 161; 101 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (S.C.C.), refd to. [paras. 23, 33, 55].

R. v. Vezeau, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 277; 8 N.R. 235; 28 C.C.C.(2d) 81; 66 D.L.R.(3d) 418, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Mohan, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 9; 166 N.R. 245; 71 O.A.C. 241; 89 C.C.C.(3d) 402, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. M.H.C., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 763; 123 N.R. 63; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 385, refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. F.F.B., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 697; 148 N.R. 161; 120 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 322 A.P.R. 1; 79 C.C.C.(3d) 112, refd to. [para. 34].

Customs and Excise Commissioners v. Harz, [1967] A.C. 760 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 34, footnote 1].

R. v. McNamara et al. (No. 1) (1981), 56 C.C.C.(2d) 193 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 34, footnote 2].

R. v. Dickinson (1984), 4 O.A.C. 45; 40 C.R.(3d) 384 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34, footnote 2].

R. v. Malone (1984), 55 N.R. 160; 3 O.A.C. 319; 11 C.C.C.(3d) 34 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34, footnote 2].

R. v. C.R.B., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 717; 107 N.R. 241; 109 A.R. 81; 76 C.R.(3d) 1; [1990] 3 W.W.R. 385; 73 Alta. L.R.(2d) 1; 55 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 34, footnotes 2, 4].

R. v. Khan, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 531; 113 N.R. 53; 41 O.A.C. 353; 59 C.C.C.(3d) 92, refd to. [paras. 35, 71].

R. v. Erven (1978), 25 N.R. 49; 30 N.S.R.(2d) 89; 49 A.P.R. 89; 44 C.C.C.(2d) 76 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 36].

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. 38].

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, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. O'Connor (H.P.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 411; 191 N.R. 1; 68 B.C.A.C. 1; 112 W.A.C. 1; 103 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [paras. 39, 80].

R. v. Monteleone (1982), 78 N.R. 393; 23 O.A.C. 257; 67 C.C.C.(2d) 489 (C.A.), affd. [1987] 2 S.C.R. 154; 78 N.R. 377; 23 O.A.C. 241; 35 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. H., [1995] 2 A.C. 596; 185 N.R. 21 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Carter, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 938; 47 N.R. 288; 46 N.B.R.(2d) 142; 121 A.P.R. 142, refd to. [para. 41, footnote 4].

R. v. Evans (B.J.), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 653; 158 N.R. 278; 145 A.R. 81; 55 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 41, footnote 4].

R. v. Burlingham (T.W.), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 206; 181 N.R. 1; 58 B.C.A.C. 161; 96 W.A.C. 161; 97 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 124 D.L.R.(4th) 7, refd to. [para. 44].

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. 56].

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 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 71].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Paciocco, The Constitutional Right to have Inherently Unreliable Evidence Excluded: Does It Exist?, Charter Principles and Proof in Criminal Cases (1987), p. 359 [para. 68].

Thesiger, J. and Choo, The Notion of Relevance and Defence Evidence, [1933] Crim. L.R. 114, generally [para. 34, footnote 1].

Counsel:

David Butt, for the appellant;

Brian Greenspan, for the respondent, Bur­ic;

Edward L. Greenspan, Q.C., and Alison Wheeler, for the respondent, Parsniak.

This appeal was heard on December 7, 1995, before Labrosse, Weiler and Laskin, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal.

The judgment of the Court of Appeal was released on May 9, 1996, and the following opinions were filed:

Labrosse, J.A. - see paragraphs 1 to 30;

Weiler, J.A. - see paragraphs 31 to 51;

Laskin, J.A., dissenting - see paragraphs 52 to 82.