R. v. Clothier (M.), 2011 ONCA 27
| Judge | O'Connor, A.C.J.O., Laskin and Gillese, JJ.A. |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Ontario) |
| Case Date | June 03, 2010 |
| Jurisdiction | Ontario |
| Citations | 2011 ONCA 27;(2011), 273 O.A.C. 162 (CA) |
R. v. Clothier (M.) (2011), 273 O.A.C. 162 (CA)
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite: [2011] O.A.C. TBEd. JA.019
Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Matthew Clothier (appellant)
(C51791; 2011 ONCA 27)
Indexed As: R. v. Clothier (M.)
Ontario Court of Appeal
O'Connor, A.C.J.O., Laskin and Gillese, JJ.A.
January 13, 2011.
Summary:
At issue on this appeal was whether the defence of entrapment applied to a regulatory offence, specifically whether government authorities could use random test shopping to monitor compliance with the Smoke Free Ontario Act, without a reasonable suspicion that the person monitored was engaged in illegal activity.
The Ontario Court of Appeal answered the question in the affirmative and dismissed the appeal.
Criminal Law - Topic 205.1
Common law defences - Entrapment - Requirement of reasonable suspicion or a bona fide investigation - [See first Trade Regulation - Topic 5272 ].
Trade Regulation - Topic 5266
Retailers - Offences - Particular offences - Selling tobacco to a minor - [See both Trade Regulation - Topic 5272 ].
Trade Regulation - Topic 5272
Retailers - Offences - Particular offences - Defences - Entrapment - At issue on this appeal was whether the defence of entrapment applied to a regulatory offence, specifically whether government authorities could use random test shopping to monitor compliance with the Smoke Free Ontario Act, without a reasonable suspicion that the person monitored was engaged in illegal activity - The Ontario Court of Appeal answered the question in the affirmative and dismissed the appeal - Entrapment was recognized as a defence in criminal law because of our concern that random virtue testing would result in too great an invasion of personal privacy - That rationale simply did not apply in this regulatory context - Second, in using random test shopping, the government was not engaged in virtue testing, but in compliance testing - "Virtue" was irrelevant to a charge under s. 3(1) of the Act - Section 3(1) was a strict liability offence - A person could be convicted for mere negligence - Third, a test shopper did not present the store or its employees with an opportunity to commit an offence that they would not otherwise encounter in the ordinary course of their business - See paragraphs 27 to 44.
Trade Regulation - Topic 5272
Retailers - Offences - Particular offences - Defences - Entrapment - At issue on this appeal was whether the defence of entrapment applied to a regulatory offence, specifically whether government authorities could use random test shopping to monitor compliance with the Smoke Free Ontario Act, without a reasonable suspicion that the person monitored was engaged in illegal activity - The Ontario Court of Appeal answered the question in the affirmative - However, the court stated that this did not mean that government authorities' discretion to use test shopping was unfettered or unreviewable by the courts - Test shopping could be done randomly, but it had to be done in good faith - It had to be used for a proper purpose and carried out bona fide and without discrimination - If done in bad faith, then courts retained jurisdiction to stay proceedings under the general abuse of process doctrine, of which entrapment was one aspect - See paragraphs 46 to 48.
Trials - Topic 265
Prosecution - General - Abuse of process - [See second Trade Regulation - Topic 5272 ].
Cases Noticed:
R. v. Mack, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 903; 90 N.R. 173, refd to. [para. 13].
R. v. Barnes, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 449; 121 N.R. 267, refd to. [para. 13].
R. v. Wholesale Travel Group Inc. and Chedore, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 154; 130 N.R. 1; 49 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 21].
R. v. Seaway Gas & Fuel Ltd. et al. (2000), 128 O.A.C. 268; 47 O.R.(3d) 458 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].
R. v. Donkersgoed, 2007 ONCJ 467, refd to. [para. 28].
R. v. Cho, [2000] O.J. No. 5354 (C.J.), leave to appeal denied [2001] O.J. No. 1041 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].
R. v. Myers (M.R.) (2000), 193 Sask.R. 289; 2000 SKQB 226, refd to. [para. 29].
R. v. Tyzuk (D.S.) (2009), 486 A.R. 377; 2009 ABPC 282, refd to. [para. 29].
R. v. Au Canada Monetary Exchange Inc. et al., [1998] B.C.T.C. Uned. I98 (Sup. Ct.), affd. [2000] B.C.A.C. Uned. 70; 2000 BCCA 193, leave to appeal denied (2000), 262 N.R. 395 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 30].
Statutes Noticed:
Smoke Free Ontario Act, S.O. 1994, c. 10, sect. 3(1) [para. 23].
Counsel:
Paul Burstein, Lauren Cook and Clifford G. Proudfoot, for the appellant;
Deanna Exner and Donna Glassman, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard on June 3, 2010, by O'Connor, A.C.J.O., Laskin and Gillese, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. Laskin, J.A., delivered the following decision for the court on January 13, 2011.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Table of cases
...237, 244 R v Clay, 2003 SCC 75 .................................................................................167, 188 R v Clothier, 2011 ONCA 27 .............................................................................. 326 R v Conception, 2014 SCC 60.......................................
-
Procedural Fairness as a Principle of Fundamental Justice
...at 941; see also 956–57. For an example of proceedings being stayed on this basis, see R v Seymour , above note 320. 324 R v Clothier , 2011 ONCA 27. 325 Ibid at paras 34–40. 326 Ibid at para 42. 327 R v Hart , 2014 SCC 52 [ Hart ]. Procedural Fairness as a Principle of Fundamental Justice ......
-
The Criminal Law and the Constitution
...of the community and be so detrimental to the proper administration of justice that it 126 R v Chiang , 2012 BCCA 85; R v Clothier , 2011 ONCA 27; R v Bayat , 2011 ONCA 778; R v Faqi , 2011 ABCA 284. 127 R v Hart , 2014 SCC 52 at paras 115–18. 128 Mack , above note 123; R v Showman (1988), ......
-
Table of Cases
...2007 SCC 32 .......................41 R v Cline (1956), 115 CCC 18, 24 CR 58, [1956] OR 539 (CA) .................. 147, 151 R v Clothier, 2011 ONCA 27 ................................................................................ 46 R v CM, 2010 ONCA 690 .......................................
-
Missisauga (City) v. Uber Canada Inc, 2016 ONCJ 746
...85 C.C.C. (3d) 287 (S.C.C.). R. v. Campbell, [1999] 1 SCR 565 (S.C.C.). R. v. CIP Inc., [1992] S.C.J. No. 3 (S.C.C.). R. v. Clothier, 2011 ONCA 27 (O.C.A.), per O'Connor A.C.J.O., Laskin, and Gillese R. v. Conway, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1659 (S.C.C.). R. v. Coulter, 2016 ONCA 704 (O.C.A.), per Str......
-
R. v. Pourlotfali (J.), 2016 ONCA 490
...[35] MacPherson J.A. went on to characterize s. 3(3) as a statutory due diligence defence: at paras. 21, 42. [36] In R. v. Clothier , 2011 ONCA 27, [see footnote 3] the only other decision of this court considering defences under the SFOA , Laskin J.A. observed at para. 39: "Section 3(1) is......
-
R. v. Ahmad, 2019 ONCJ 853
...3 SCR 620 at paras. 6-8. [7] R. v. Imoro, 2010 ONCA 122 at para. 24. [8] R. v. Barnes, [1991] 1 SCR 449 at p. 460. [9] R. v. Clothier, 2011 ONCA 27. [10] Barnes, supra, at p. [11] It appears that the interjurisdictional immunity doctrine first emerged in the Judicial Committee of the Privy ......
-
R. v. Ahmad, 2018 ONCA 534
...activity in a way that offends our sense of decency and fair play: see R. v. Pearson, [1998] 3 S.C.R. 620, at para. 11; R. v. Clothier, 2011 ONCA 27, 273 O.A.C. 162, at para. 47. While courts must be careful not to condone unfair police practices, an overly technical approach to the entrapm......
-
Criminal Competition Law Developments - Quarterly Update
...The entrapment defence in regulatory crimes An interesting decision came from the Ontario Court of Appeal on January 13. In R. v. Clothier 2011 ONCA 27, Laskin J.A., dismissed an appeal by a defendant who had been charged with a regulatory offence under the Smoke Free Ontario Act, S.O. 1994......
-
Table of cases
...237, 244 R v Clay, 2003 SCC 75 .................................................................................167, 188 R v Clothier, 2011 ONCA 27 .............................................................................. 326 R v Conception, 2014 SCC 60.......................................
-
Procedural Fairness as a Principle of Fundamental Justice
...at 941; see also 956–57. For an example of proceedings being stayed on this basis, see R v Seymour , above note 320. 324 R v Clothier , 2011 ONCA 27. 325 Ibid at paras 34–40. 326 Ibid at para 42. 327 R v Hart , 2014 SCC 52 [ Hart ]. Procedural Fairness as a Principle of Fundamental Justice ......
-
The Criminal Law and the Constitution
...of the community and be so detrimental to the proper administration of justice that it 126 R v Chiang , 2012 BCCA 85; R v Clothier , 2011 ONCA 27; R v Bayat , 2011 ONCA 778; R v Faqi , 2011 ABCA 284. 127 R v Hart , 2014 SCC 52 at paras 115–18. 128 Mack , above note 123; R v Showman (1988), ......
-
Table of Cases
...2007 SCC 32 .......................41 R v Cline (1956), 115 CCC 18, 24 CR 58, [1956] OR 539 (CA) .................. 147, 151 R v Clothier, 2011 ONCA 27 ................................................................................ 46 R v CM, 2010 ONCA 690 .......................................