R. v. Clark (F.A.), (2015) 380 B.C.A.C. 15 (CA)

• Judge: Frankel, Tysoe and Willcock, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: November 06, 2015
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (2015), 380 B.C.A.C. 15 (CA);2015 BCCA 488

R. v. Clark (F.A.) (2015), 380 B.C.A.C. 15 (CA);

    655 W.A.C. 15

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] B.C.A.C. TBEd. NO.047

Regina (appellant) v. Frederick Allen Clark (respondent)

(CA42360; 2015 BCCA 488)

Indexed As: R. v. Clark (F.A.)

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Frankel, Tysoe and Willcock, JJ.A.

November 26, 2015.

Summary:

At approximately 2 a.m., an officer applied for a telewarrant to investigate theft of electricity at a residence. The judicial justice (JJ) on call asked the officer why the search warrant was required at that hour and why it could not be made in person during the day. The officer provided a number of reasons. The JJ advised the officer to be sure to include those reasons in the information to obtain (ITO) the warrant. The officer added the reasons in paragraph 26 of the Appendix to the ITO. The warrant was granted and executed. On the basis of the evidence obtained, the accused was charged with production of marijuana, possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking and theft of electricity. At trial, the accused sought exclusion of the drugs and other evidence, asserting, inter alia, that the officer had received inappropriate guidance and advice from the JJ prior to the telewarrant application being submitted, which undermined the requirement of judicial independence.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported at [2014] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1988, allowed the application, finding that the JJ's guidance was for the purpose of facilitating the acceptance of the telewarrant application. The court drew an inference that the JJ was in favour of the telewarrant being approved before he had seen the application. Paragraph 26 was excised. Without paragraph 26, the "impracticability" requirement in s. 487.1(1) of the Criminal Code for the issuance of a telewarrant was not met and the telewarrant was invalid. The warrantless search of the accused's residence infringed the accused's rights under s. 8 of the Charter, justifying exclusion of the evidence obtained under s. 24(2). The accused was acquitted. The Crown appealed, asserting that the trial judge erred in finding a lack of impartiality by the JJ and in excluding the evidence under s. 24(2). Essentially, the Crown argued that the trial judge had engaged in speculation when he inferred that the JJ was predisposed to grant the telewarrant.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. The question of whether an inference was the product of speculation was a question of law. It was open to the Crown to challenge the finding of impartiality. On the evidence, it was neither logical nor reasonable to find, by inference, that the presumption of judicial impartiality had been displaced. The trial judge had erred in excising paragraph 26 from the ITO. With or without paragraph 26, the telewarrant was properly issued. The decision to exclude the evidence could not stand. The acquittals were set aside and a new trial was ordered.

Civil Rights - Topic 1604

Property - Search warrants - Validity of - See paragraphs 63 to 81.

Courts - Topic 590

Judges - Duties - Duty to appear just and impartial - See paragraphs 45 to 62.

Criminal Law - Topic 3046

Special powers - Search warrants - Validity of - General - See paragraphs 63 to 81.

Criminal Law - Topic 3051

Special powers - Search warrants - Narcotic control - See paragraphs 45 to 81.

Criminal Law - Topic 3057

Special powers - Search warrants - Telewarrants - See paragraphs 45 to 81.

Criminal Law - Topic 3096

Special powers - Issue of search warrants - Duty of judge respecting - See paragraphs 45 to 62.

Criminal Law - Topic 4860

Appeals - Indictable offences - Grounds of appeal - Question of law or error of law - See paragraphs 33 to 44.

Criminal Law - Topic 4951

Appeals - Indictable offences - New trials - Grounds - Misdirection by trial judge - Appeal by Crown from acquittal - See paragraphs 33 to 83.

Criminal Law - Topic 4975

Appeals - Indictable offences - Powers of Court of Appeal - Appeal from an acquittal - See paragraphs 33 to 44.

Evidence - Topic 10

General and definitions - Question of law and question of fact distinguished - See paragraphs 33 to 44.

Evidence - Topic 200

Inferences and weight of evidence - Inferences - Whether reasonable inference or speculation - See paragraphs 45 to 62.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Van den Meerssche (1989), 53 C.C.C.(3d) 449 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Koczab (A.), [2014] 1 S.C.R. 138; 453 N.R. 113; 303 Man.R.(2d) 121; 600 W.A.C. 121; 2014 SCC 9, reving. (2013), 294 Man.R.(2d) 24; 581 W.A.C. 24; 309 C.C.C.(3d) 183; 2013 MBCA 43, refd to. [para. 35].

Toneguzzo-Norvell et al. v. Savein and Burnaby Hospital, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 114; 162 N.R. 161; 38 B.C.A.C. 193; 62 W.A.C. 193, refd to. [para. 42].

Vedan v. Stevens et al., [2011] B.C.A.C. Uned. 128; 2011 BCCA 386, refd to. [para. 42].

Waxman et al. v. Waxman et al. (2004), 186 O.A.C. 201 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (2005), 339 N.R. 200; 207 O.A.C. 400 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Rousseau, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 38; 60 N.R. 278, refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Hehn (G.) (2008), 254 B.C.A.C. 215; 426 W.A.C. 215; 2008 BCCA 170, refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Martin (G.W.) (2010), 361 N.B.R.(2d) 251; 931 A.P.R. 251; 257 C.C.C.(3d) 433; 2010 NBCA 41, leave to appeal denied (2011), 417 N.R. 395 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 43].

Caswell v. Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd., [1940] A.C. 152 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Morrissey (R.J.) (1995), 80 O.A.C. 161; 97 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

Cojocaru v. British Columbia Women's Hospital and Health Center et al., [2013] 2 S.C.R. 357; 445 N.R. 138; 336 B.C.A.C. 1; 574 W.A.C. 1; 2013 SCC 30, refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. R.D.S., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 484; 218 N.R. 1; 161 N.S.R.(2d) 241; 477 A.P.R. 241, refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Gray (L.M.) (1993), 85 Man.R.(2d) 211; 41 W.A.C. 211; 81 C.C.C.(3d) 174 (C.A.), dist. [para. 48].

R. v. Gordon (E.W.T.) (1999), 138 Man.R.(2d) 298; 202 W.A.C. 298; 139 C.C.C.(3d) 239 (C.A.), consd. [para. 48].

R. v. Howe (R.Y.) (1994), 52 B.C.A.C. 271; 86 W.A.C. 271 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Krist (J.) (1998), 113 B.C.A.C. 176; 184 W.A.C. 176; 130 C.C.C.(3d) 347 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied (1999), 243 N.R. 194 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Kelly (R.J.) (1995), 61 B.C.A.C. 119; 100 W.A.C. 119; 99 C.C.C.(3d) 367 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

Restaurant Le Clémenceau Inc. v. Drouin, J., et al., [1987] 1 S.C.R. 706; 77 N.R. 72, refd to [para. 51].

R. v. Araujo (A.) et al., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 992; 262 N.R. 346; 143 B.C.A.C. 257; 235 W.A.C. 257; 2000 SCC 65, refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. Lising (R.) et al., [2005] 3 S.C.R. 343; 341 N.R. 147; 217 B.C.A.C. 65; 358 W.A.C. 65; 2005 SCC 66, refd to. [para. 52].

Chum Ltd. v. Wicks, P.C.J., and R. (1989), 74 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 150; 231 A.P.R. 150 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. Haley (R.G.L.) (1995), 142 N.S.R.(2d) 107; 407 A.P.R. 107 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. Robillard, [1996] R.J.Q. 2886 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied, [1997] 1 S.C.R. vii, refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. Rowbotham (1988), 25 O.A.C. 321; 41 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. Ho (T.N.) (2012), 539 A.R. 137; 561 W.A.C. 137; 293 C.C.C.(3d) 185; 2012 ABCA 348, refd to. [para. 53].

Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291, refd to. [para. 61].

R. v. MacDuff (J.W.) (2011), 298 B.C.A.C. 152; 505 W.A.C. 152; 2011 BCCA 2, refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Ballendine (K.D.) (2011), 304 B.C.A.C. 20; 513 W.A.C. 20; 271 C.C.C.(3d) 418; 2011 BCCA 221, refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Le (T.T.) (2009), 268 B.C.A.C. 58; 452 W.A.C. 58; 2009 BCCA 14, refd to. [para. 66].

R. v. Voong (C.) (2013), 347 B.C.A.C. 278; 593 W.A.C. 278; 304 C.C.C.(3d) 546; 2013 BCCA 527, refd to. [para. 67].

R. v. Nguyen (Q.H.) et al. (2009), 267 B.C.A.C. 91; 450 W.A.C. 91; 243 C.C.C.(3d) 392; 2009 BCCA 89, refd to. [para. 68].

R. v. Ling (M.D.) (2009), 266 B.C.A.C. 281; 449 W.A.C. 281; 241 C.C.C.(3d) 409; 2009 BCCA 70, leave to appeal denied (2009), 399 N.R. 400; 285 B.C.A.C. 320; 482 W.A.C. 320 (S.C.C.), dist. [para. 76].

R. v. Young (J.W.) (2008), 264 B.C.A.C. 1; 445 W.A.C. 1; 2008 BCCA 513, refd to. [para. 79].

R. v. Scott (J.A.) (2012), 316 B.C.A.C. 247; 537 W.A.C. 247; 280 C.C.C.(3d) 232; 2012 BCCA 99, leave to appeal denied [2012] 3 S.C.R. xiii; 439 N.R. 395, refd to. [para. 79].

R. v. Mikituk, 2012 BCPC 344, agreed with [para. 79].

R. v. Magee (D.F.), [2014] B.C.T.C. Uned. 384; 308 C.R.R.(2d) 214; 2014 BCSC 384, agreed with [para. 79].

Counsel:

W.P. Riley, Q.C., for the appellant;

J. van der Walle, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on November 6, 2015, by Frankel, Tysoe and Willcock, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. On November 26, 2015, Frankel, J.A., delivered the following reasons for judgment for the court.