R. v. Carosella (N.), (1997) 207 N.R. 321 (SCC)

• Judge: Iacobucci and Major, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: February 06, 1997
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1997), 207 N.R. 321 (SCC);[1997] 1 SCR 80;EYB 1997-00069;JE 97-358;31 OR (3d) 575;142 DLR (4th) 595;1997 CanLII 402 (SCC);33 WCB (2d) 226;207 NR 321;[1997] SCJ No 12 (QL);98 OAC 81;[1997] CarswellOnt 85;4 CR (5th) 139;112 CCC (3d) 289;41 CRR (2d) 189;[1997] ACS no 12

R. v. Carosella (N.) (1997), 207 N.R. 321 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

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

Nick Carosella (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent)

(24974)

Indexed As: R. v. Carosella (N.)

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé,

Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin,

Iacobucci and Major, JJ.

February 6, 1997.

Summary:

The accused was charged with committing acts of gross indecency against one of his students between 1964 and 1966. The com­plainant was interviewed by a social worker from the Sexual Abuse Crisis Centre. Pursu­ant to the Centre's policy, the social worker's notes of the interview were destroyed. The accused applied for a stay of proceedings, claiming that his right to make full answer and defence under ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter was violated. The trial judge allowed the application and stayed the proceedings. The Crown appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a decision reported 85 O.A.C. 297, allowed the appeal. The accused appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier and McLachlin, JJ., dissenting, allowed the appeal. The court set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal and restored the stay of proceedings.

Civil Rights - Topic 3128

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal proceedings - Right of accused to obtain evidence - The accused was charged with sexual offences - The crisis centre social worker who interviewed the complainant destroyed her notes pursuant to the centre's policy - The complainant had accepted that the notes could be subpoenaed - The balance of the centre's file was disclosed to the accused - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the destruction of the notes violated the accused's right to make full answer and defence under ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Char­ter where the notes were found to be rel­evant and material and the complainant had waived her right to confidentiality and consented to production (as did the Crown) - See paragraphs 25 to 47.

Civil Rights - Topic 3128

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal proceedings - Right of accused to obtain evidence - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "The right to disclosure of material which meets the Stinchcombe threshold is one of the components of the right to make full answer and defence which in turn is a principle of fundamental justice embraced by s. 7 of the Charter. Breach of that obligation is a breach of the accused's constitutional rights without the require­ment of an additional showing of preju­dice. ... the breach of this principle of fundamental justice is in itself prejudicial. The requirement to show additional preju­dice or actual prejudice relates to the remedy to be fashioned pursuant to s. 24(1) of the Charter. It is immaterial that the right to disclosure is not explicitly listed as one of the components of the principles of fundamental justice. This is true as well of the right to make full answer and defence and other rights. The components of the right cannot be sepa­rated from the right itself." - See para­graphs 37, 38.

Civil Rights - Topic 3133

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal proceedings - Right of accused to make full answer and defence - [See both Civil Rights - Topic 3128 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8367

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - General -[See second Civil Rights - Topic 3128 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8374

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Stay of proceedings - The accused was charged with sexual offences - The crisis centre social worker who interviewed the com­plainant destroyed her notes pursuant to the centre's policy - The balance of the centre's file was disclosed to the accused - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the destruction of the notes violated the accused's right to make full answer and defence under ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Char­ter - The court affirmed that a stay of proceedings was appropriate - Credibility was a major issue - The accused was prejudiced because he was denied the opportunity to fully cross-examine the complainant using the first detailed account of the complaint and the only written record independent of the investi­gation - There was no alternative remedy to cure the prejudice - The integrity of the judicial system would suffer irreparable prejudice if the prosecution continued where the deliberate destruction of docu­ments was designed to defeat the processes of the court - See para­graphs 48 to 57.

Civil Rights - Topic 8547

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Particular words and phrases - Principles of fundamental justice - [See second Civil Rights - Topic 3128 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 128

General principles - Rights of accused - Right to make full answer and defence - [See both Civil Rights - Topic 3128 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 129

General principles - Rights of accused - Right to discovery or production - [See both Civil Rights - Topic 3128 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 691

Sexual offences - Evidence - Medical or counselling records of complainant - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 3128 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5366

Evidence and witnesses - Documents and reports - Psychiatric or counselling records - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 3128 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Osolin, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 595; 162 N.R. 1; 38 B.C.A.C. 81; 62 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Young (1984), 3 O.A.C. 254; 46 O.R.(2d) 520 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

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, consd. [paras. 26, 66].

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, consd. [paras. 26, 68].

R. v. Tran (Q.D.), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 951; 170 N.R. 81; 133 N.S.R.(2d) 81; 380 A.P.R. 81, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Bartle (K.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 173; 172 N.R. 1; 74 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Dersch (W.W.) et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1505; 116 N.R. 340; 43 O.A.C. 256; [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; 36 Q.A.C. 258, refd to. [para. 29].

Dersch v. Canada (Attorney General) - see R. v. Dersch (W.W.) et al.

R. v. Durette et al., [1994] 1 S.C.R. 469; 163 N.R. 321; 70 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [paras. 30, 66].

R. v. Farinacci - see R. v. Durette et al.

Carey v. Ontario et al., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 637; 72 N.R. 81; 20 O.A.C. 81; 35 D.L.R.(4th) 161; 30 C.C.C.(3d) 498; 59 O.R.(2d) 352, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. O'Connor (H.P.) (1994), 42 B.C.A.C. 105; 67 W.A.C. 105; 89 C.C.C.(3d) 109 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Antinello (J.J.) (1995), 165 A.R. 122; 89 W.A.C. 122; 97 C.C.C.(3d) 126 (C.A.), folld. [para. 34].

R. v. Egger (J.H.), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 451; 153 N.R. 272; 141 A.R. 81; 46 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [paras. 36, 66].

R. v. Stinchcombe (1994), 149 A.R. 167; 63 W.A.C. 167 (C.A.), affd. [1995] 1 S.C.R. 754; 178 N.R. 157; 162 A.R. 269; 83 W.A.C. 269, refd to. [paras. 39, 66].

R. v. Simpson (D.), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 449; 178 N.R. 145; 127 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 171; 396 A.P.R. 171, refd to. [para. 48].

Elsom v. Elsom, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1367; 96 N.R. 165, refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Duguay, Murphy and Sevigny, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 93; 91 N.R. 201; 31 O.A.C. 177, refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Greffe, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 755; 107 N.R. 1; 107 A.R. 1; 55 C.C.C.(3d) 161; 75 C.R.(3d) 257; 46 C.R.R. 1; [1990] 3 W.W.R. 577; 73 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97, refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Grant (D.), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 223; 159 N.R. 161; 35 B.C.A.C. 1; 57 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Borden (J.R.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 145; 171 N.R. 1; 134 N.S.R.(2d) 321; 383 A.P.R. 321, refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Silveira (A.), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 297; 181 N.R. 161; 81 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 48].

Friends of the Oldman River Society v. Canada (Minister of Transport and Min­ister of Fisheries and Oceans), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 3; 132 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 49].

Osenton (Charles) & Co. v. Johnston, [1942] A.C. 130 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 49].

Reza v. Minister of Employment and Im­migration, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 394; 167 N.R. 282; 72 O.A.C. 348, refd to. [para. 49].

Metropolitan Stores (MTS) Ltd. v. Mani­toba Food and Commercial Workers, Local 832 and Labour Board (Man.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 110; 73 N.R. 341; 46 Man.R.(2d) 241; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 321; 18 C.P.C.(2d) 273; 25 Admin. L.R. 20, refd to. [para. 50].

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, refd to. [para. 66].

Dolphin Delivery Ltd. v. Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 580, Peterson and Alexander, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 573; 71 N.R. 83; 33 D.L.R.(4th) 174; 38 C.C.L.T. 184; 25 C.R.R. 321; [1987] 1 W.W.R. 577; 87 C.L.L.C. 14,002, refd to. [para. 69].

McKinney v. University of Guelph et al., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 229; 118 N.R. 1; 45 O.A.C. 1; 76 D.L.R.(4th) 545; 2 C.R.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 69].

R. v. D.A. (1995), 57 O.A.C. 295; 76 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 76].

R. v. Santocono (V.J.) (1996), 91 O.A.C. 26; 28 O.R.(3d) 630 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 76].

R. v. D.J.B. (1993), 16 C.R.R.(2d) 381 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 76].

R. v. R.A.D. (1993), 25 B.C.A.C. 206; 43 W.A.C. 206; 80 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 77].

R. v. P.S.L. (1995), 66 B.C.A.C. 178; 108 W.A.C. 178; 103 C.C.C.(3d) 341 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 77].

R. v. Gatley (D.R.) (1992), 15 B.C.A.C. 162; 27 W.A.C. 162; 74 C.C.C.(3d) 468 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 77].

R. v. Halcrow (V.A.) (1993), 24 B.C.A.C. 197; 40 W.A.C. 197; 80 C.C.C.(3d) 320 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 77].

R. v. MacDonnell (F.E.) (1996), 148 N.S.R.(2d) 289; 429 A.P.R. 289 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 78].

R. v. Daley (D.L.) (1992), 81 Man.R.(2d) 302; 30 W.A.C. 302; 77 C.C.C.(3d) 426 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 78].

R. v. Ledinski (G.) (1995), 134 Sask.R. 256; 101 W.A.C. 256; 102 C.C.C.(3d) 445 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 78].

R. v. W.G.G. (1990), 85 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 91; 266 A.P.R. 91; 58 C.C.C.(3d) 263 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 78].

R. v. Lupien (R.) (1995), 68 Q.A.C. 253 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 78].

R. v. Finta, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 701; 165 N.R. 1; 70 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 79].

California v. Trombetta (1984), 467 U.S. 479, refd to. [para. 82].

United States v. Fletcher (1986), 801 F.2d 1222 (10th Cir.), refd to. [para. 82].

State v. Wittenbarger (1994), 880 P.2d 517 (Wash.), refd to. [para. 83].

Arizona v. Youngblood (1988), 488 U.S. 51, refd to. [para. 83].

People v. Beeler (1995), 891 P.2d 153 (Cal.), refd to. [para. 83].

State v. Morales (1995), 657 A.2d 585 (Conn.), refd to. [para. 83].

State v. Garcia (1994), 643 A.2d 180 (R.I.), refd to. [para. 83].

United States v. Castro (1989), 887 F.2d 988 (9th Cir.), refd to. [para. 84].

Smith v. Secretary of New Mexico De­partment of Corrections (1995), 50 F.3d 801 (10th Cir.), refd to. [para. 84].

People v. Webb (1993), 862 P.2d 779 (Cal.), refd to. [para. 84].

State v. Waite (1984), 484 A.2d 887 (R.I.), refd to. [para. 84].

R. v. W.K.L., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 1091; 124 N.R. 146; [1991] 4 W.W.R. 385; 64 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 6 C.R.(4th) 1; 4 C.R.R.(2d) 298, refd to. [para. 86].

R. v. Power (E.), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 601; 165 N.R. 241; 117 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 269; 365 A.P.R. 269, refd to. [para. 89].

R. v. Potvin (R.), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 880; 155 N.R. 241; 66 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 93].

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. 94].

R. v. Sharma, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 814; 134 N.R. 368; 53 O.A.C. 288; 12 C.R.(4th) 45, refd to. [para. 95].

R. v. Vermette, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 985; 84 N.R. 296; 14 Q.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 96].

R. v. La (H.K.) et al. (1996), 181 A.R. 192; 116 W.A.C. 192; 105 C.C.C.(3d) 417 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 103].

R. v. Seaboyer and Gayme, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 577; 128 N.R. 81; 48 O.A.C. 81; 66 C.C.C.(3d) 321, refd to. [para. 125].

R. v. Lyons, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 309; 80 N.R. 161; 82 N.S.R.(2d) 271; 207 A.P.R. 271; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 126].

R. v. Tobin (J.F.) (1995), 142 N.S.R.(2d) 83; 407 A.P.R. 83 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 127].

R. v. Ross, [1995] O.J. No. 3716 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 127].

United States v. Femia (1993), 9 F.3d 990 (1st Cir.), refd to. [para. 127].

R. v. Martin (1991), 43 O.A.C. 378; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 71 (C.A.), affd. [1992] 1 S.C.R. 838; 145 N.R. 161; 59 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 128].

R. v. Andrew (S.) (1992), 60 O.A.C. 324 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 128].

People v. Kelly (1984), 467 N.E.2d 498 (N.Y.), refd to. [para. 132].

People v. Sams (1984), 685 P.2d 157 (Colo.), refd to. [para. 132].

R. v. Rourke, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 1021; 16 N.R. 181, refd to. [para. 137].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 7, sect. 11(d) [paras. 18, 60]; sect. 24(1) [paras. 26, 129].

Criminal Code, S.C. 1953-54, c. 51, sect. 149 [para. 2].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Choo, Andrew L.-T., Halting Criminal Prosecutions: The Abuse of Process Doctrine Revisited, [1995] Crim. L.R. 864, pp. 866, 867 [paras. 135, 137]; 868, 869, 870, 871 [para. 135].

Gilmour, Joan, Counselling Records: Dis­closure in Sexual Assault Cases, The Charter's Impact on the Criminal Justice System (1996), pp. 239, 243 [para. 66]; 256 [para. 144]; 257 [para. 147].

MacCrimmon, Marilyn T., Trial by Ordeal (1996), 1 Can. Crim. L.R. 31, pp. 50, 51 [para. 104]; 56 [para. 147].

Martin, Dianne, Rising Expectations: Slip­pery Slope or New Horizon? The Con­stitutionalization of Criminal Trials in Canada, The Charter's Impact on the Criminal Justice System (1996), pp. 108, 109 [para. 98]; 116 [paras. 103, 144].

Paciocco, David M., The Stay of Proceed­ings as a Remedy in Criminal Cases: Abusing the Abuse of Process Concept (1991), 15 Crim. L.J. 315, pp. 318, 319 [para. 135]; 319, fn. 12 [para. 137].

Stuesser, Lee, General Principles Concern­ing Disclosure (1996), 1 Can. Crim. L.R. 1, p. 13 [para. 120].

Counsel:

Bruce Duncan, for the appellant;

Susan Chapman and Hugh Ashford, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Bruce Duncan, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant;

The Ministry of the Attorney General, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on June 19, 1996, by Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The judgment of the court was delivered in both official languages on February 6, 1997, and the following opinions were filed:

Sopinka, J. (Lamer, C.J.C., Cory, Iaco­bucci and Major, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 57;

L'Heureux-Dubé, J. (La Forest, Gonthier and McLachlin, JJ., concurring), dis­senting - see paragraphs 58 to 148.