R. v. Cook (D.W.), (1997) 188 N.B.R.(2d) 161 (SCC)

• Judge: Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: February 20, 1997
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1997), 188 N.B.R.(2d) 161 (SCC);JE 97-921;188 NBR (2d) 161;[1997] ACS no 22;114 CCC (3d) 481;[1997] SCJ No 22 (QL);[1997] 1 SCR 1113;480 APR 161;34 WCB (2d) 285;1997 CanLII 392 (SCC);7 CR (5th) 51;210 NR 197;146 DLR (4th) 437;[1997] CarswellNB 125

R. v. Cook (D.W.) (1997), 188 N.B.R.(2d) 161 (SCC);

    188 R.N.-B.(2e) 161; 480 A.P.R. 161

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. Donald Wayne Cook (respondent)

(25394)

Indexed As: R. v. Cook (D.W.)

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.

April 24, 1997.

Summary:

The accused was convicted before a judge and jury of a charge of assault causing bodily harm. The accused appealed. The appeal focused on the issue of the Crown's failure to call the victim as a witness at the trial.

The New Brunswick Court of Appeal, Hoyt, C.J.N.B., dissenting, in a decision reported at 178 N.B.R.(2d) 38; 454 A.P.R. 38, allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial. The Crown appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal and restored the conviction.

Criminal Law - Topic 137

Rights of accused - Right to cross-exam­ine - [See third Criminal Law - Topic 5409 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4291

Procedure - Trial judge - Duties and functions of - General - The accused was convicted of assault causing bodily harm - The Crown did not call the victim as a witness at the ac­cused's trial - The Supreme Court of Canada held that there was no mandatory duty on a trial judge to inquire into the reasons why the Crown decided not to call the witness - The court stated that while such an inquiry might be appropriate in a given case, it would leave that discretion to the trial judge - See paragraphs 59 to 64.

Criminal Law - Topic 4291

Procedure - Trial judge - Duties and functions of - General - [See first Crimi­nal Law - Topic 5409 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4295

Procedure - Trial judge - Duties and functions of - Power to call evidence - [See first, third and fourth Criminal Law - Topic 5409 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4420.03

Procedure - Opening and closing ad­dresses - Summing up - Counsel - Clos­ing address - Re order of jury address - [See fourth Criminal Law - Topic 5409 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5409

Evidence and witnesses - Witnesses - Duty of Crown to call witnesses - The accused was convicted of assault causing bodily harm - The Crown did not call the victim as a witness at the ac­cused's trial - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Crown had a complete discretion in deciding which witnesses it would call as part of its case and the court found no error in the fact that the Crown chose not to call the victim to testify - The court further concluded that the trial judge did not err in failing to call the witness him­self and there was no duty on the trial judge to inquire into the Crown's moti­vations for not calling the victim as a witness - See paragraphs 65 to 67.

Criminal Law - Topic 5409

Evidence and witnesses - Witnesses - Duty of Crown to call witnesses - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "any rationale compelling the Crown to call witnesses based on the need to bring all material facts forward was extinguished by developments in the law of disclosure. It is simply no longer correct to suggest that the defence will ever be 'ambushed' by the Crown's failure to call a material witness ... there is simply no merit to the sugges­tion that the accused is 'ambushed' by the fact that a given witness is not called. Any existing unfairness in this regard can be resolved through disclosure and existing remedies, coupled with the accused's abil­ity to call the witness" - See paragraphs 36 and 37.

Criminal Law - Topic 5409

Evidence and witnesses - Witnesses - Duty of Crown to call witnesses - The Supreme Court of Canada held that, sub­ject to an exception noted below, it could not be said that the failure of the Crown to call a witness unfairly deprived the ac­cused of the ability to cross-examine - The court stated that existing procedures adequately protected against unfairness suffered in that regard - The court noted that the accused was not obliged to call the witness and that there were other options available, including asking the trial judge to call the witness, commenting in closing on the witness' absence, or asking the trial judge to comment - In appropriate cir­cumstances, an accused might also rely on s. 9 of the Canada Evidence Act - The court recognized that there might be cases in which the disadvantage to the defence of calling a potentially hostile witness would be manifestly unfair - Where that occurred, the trial judge could consider that factor in deciding whether to call the witness him or herself - See paragraphs 38 to 43.

Criminal Law - Topic 5409

Evidence and witnesses - Witnesses - Duty of Crown to call witnesses - An accused argued that the Crown's failure to call essential witnesses would force the defence to do so and, as a result, effec­tively remove the right not to call evidence and address the jury last, as set out in s. 651(3) of the Criminal Code - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "the degree to which an accused is prejudiced by the order of closing addresses will vary upon the facts of each case, and most importantly by whether or not he or she already planned to call witnesses. For this reason, I do not feel that this factor is sufficient to warrant impeding the Crown's discretion to produce witnesses as the Crown chooses. Rather ... it can be a factor for the trial judge to consider in deciding whether or not to call the witness him or herself" - See paragraphs 44 to 47.

Criminal Law - Topic 5409

Evidence and witnesses - Witnesses - Duty of Crown to call witnesses - The Supreme Court of Canada held that there was no duty upon the Crown to call wit­nesses nor was there a more specific duty to call the complainant or victim as a witness - Decisions on how to present the case against an accused were to be left to the Crown's discretion absent evidence that this discretion was being abused - See paragraph 55.

Cases Noticed:

Lemay v. R., [1952] 1 S.C.R. 232, consd. [para. 10].

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; 8 C.R.(4th) 277, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. V.T., [1992] 1 S.C.R. 749; 134 N.R. 289; 7 B.C.A.C. 81; 15 W.A.C. 81, consd. [para. 19].

R. v. Smythe, [1971] S.C.R. 680, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Verrette, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 838; 21 N.R. 571; 40 C.C.C.(2d) 273, refd to. [para. 19].

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; 89 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 29 C.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 19].

United States of America v. Leon, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 888; 195 N.R. 228; 90 O.A.C. 217; 105 C.C.C.(3d) 385, refd to. [para. 19].

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; [1996] 2 W.W.R. 153; 103 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 20].

Boucher v. R., [1955] S.C.R. 16, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Gruenke, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 263; 130 N.R. 161; 75 Man.R.(2d) 112; 6 W.A.C. 112; 67 C.C.C.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Bain, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 91; 133 N.R. 1; 51 O.A.C. 161; 69 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Jones (S.), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 229; 166 N.R. 321; 43 B.C.A.C. 241; 69 W.A.C. 241; 89 C.C.C.(3d) 353, refd to. [para. 21].

Seneviratne v. R., [1936] 3 All E.R. 36, consd. [para. 23].

Adel Muhammed v. Palestine (Attorney General), [1944] A.C. 156 (P.C.), consd. [para. 26].

R. v. Murdock (1978), 40 C.C.C.(2d) 97 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Jewell and Wiseman (1980), 54 C.C.C.(2d) 286 (Sask. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Oliva, [1965] 3 All E.R. 116 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Yebes, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 168; 78 N.R. 351; 36 C.C.C.(3d) 417; 59 C.R.(3d) 108; 17 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1; [1987] 6 W.W.R. 97; 43 D.L.R.(4th) 424, consd. [para. 30].

Whitehorn v. R. (1983), 152 C.L.R. 657 (Aust. H.C.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Apostilides (1984), 154 C.L.R. 563 (Aust. H.C.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Gallagher (D.N.) (1994), 48 B.C.A.C. 139; 78 W.A.C. 139 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

People v. Andre W. (1978), 404 N.Y.S.2d 578 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. J.V. (1994), 91 C.C.C.(3d) 284 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Franks (1991), 4 B.C.A.C. 72; 9 W.A.C. 72; 67 C.C.C.(3d) 280 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Noble (S.J.) (1997), 210 N.R. 321; 89 B.C.A.C. 1; 145 W.A.C. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Swain, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 933; 125 N.R. 1; 47 O.A.C. 81; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Levogiannis, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 475; 160 N.R. 371; 67 O.A.C. 321; 25 C.R.(4th) 325; 85 C.C.C.(3d) 327; 18 C.R.R.(2d) 242, refd to. [para. 39].

Cunningham v. Canada, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 143; 151 N.R. 161; 62 O.A.C. 243; 80 C.C.C.(3d) 492; 20 C.R.(4th) 57; 11 Admin. L.R.(2d) 1; 14 C.R.R.(2d) 234, refd to. [para. 39].

Reference Re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266; [1986] 1 W.W.R. 481; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 48 C.R.(3d) 289; 24 D.L.R.(4th) 536; 36 M.V.R. 240; 69 B.C.L.R.(2d) 145; 18 C.R.R. 30, refd to. [para. 39].

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; 19 C.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Finta, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 701; 165 N.R. 1; 70 O.A.C. 241; 88 C.C.C.(3d) 417; 112 D.L.R.(4th) 513; 28 C.R.(4th) 265; 20 C.R.R.(2d) 1, consd. [para. 45].

R. v. Guyatt (1994), 35 C.R.(4th) 178 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. Hutchinson (C.R.) (1995), 141 N.S.R.(2d) 258; 403 A.P.R. 258; 99 C.C.C.(3d) 88 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. Rose (J.) (1996), 90 O.A.C. 193 (C.A.), leave to appeal granted (1997), 208 N.R. 80; 99 O.A.C. 80 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 47].

Cloutier v. Langlois and Bédard, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 158; 105 N.R. 241; 30 Q.A.C. 241; 53 C.C.C.(3d) 257; 46 C.R.R. 37, refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. Salituro, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 654; 131 N.R. 161; 50 O.A.C. 125; 68 C.C.C.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. Black (C.V.) (1990), 96 N.S.R.(2d) 124; 253 A.P.R. 124; 55 C.C.C.(3d) 421 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 56].

R. v. Taylor (1970), 1 C.C.C.(2d) 321 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 56].

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; 96 C.C.C.(3d) 225, refd to. [para. 61].

Statutes Noticed:

Canada Evidence Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-5, sect. 9 [para. 42].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 651(3) [para. 44].

Evidence Act (Can.) - see Canada Evi­dence Act.

Authors and Works Noticed:

Mewett, Alan W., Witnesses (1995), p. 2-12 [para. 37].

Counsel:

Graham J. Sleeth, Q.C., and Christopher T. Titus, for the appellant;

Margaret Gallagher, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

New Brunswick (Attorney General), Fred­ericton, New Brunswick, for the appel­lant;

Margaret Gallagher, Saint John, New Brunswick, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on February 20, 1997, before Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The decision of the Supreme Court of Canada was rendered from the bench on February 20, 1997, and the following written reasons were delivered by L'Heureux-Dubé, J., in both official languages on April 24, 1997.