R. v. Diggs (F.K.), (1993) 123 N.S.R.(2d) 34 (ProvCt)

• Court: Provincial Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: February 12, 1993
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: (1993), 123 N.S.R.(2d) 34 (ProvCt)

R. v. Diggs (F.K.) (1993), 123 N.S.R.(2d) 34 (ProvCt);

  340 A.P.R. 34

MLB headnote and full text

Her Majesty The Queen v. Floyd Kenneth Diggs

(299880-299909)

Indexed As: R. v. Diggs (F.K.)

Nova Scotia Provincial Court

Gibson, J.P.C.

May 19, 1993.

Summary:

The accused was charged with making false or misleading statements contrary to the Unemployment Insurance Act, s. 103(1)(a). The accused argued that a state­ment by him to an Unemployment Insurance investigator should be excluded from evi­dence because of breaches of his Charter rights (ss. 7 and 10(b)).

The Nova Scotia Provincial Court held that there was no breach of the Charter and ruled that the statement was admissible.

Civil Rights - Topic 3160

Trials - Due process - Fundamental jus­tice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Right to remain silent - An Unemployment Insur­ance investigator suspected that a claimant illegally collected benefits - The investi­gator asked the claimant to come to her office to discuss the claim - Upon arrival the investigator advised the claimant that he did not have to say anything - He was charged with an offence under the Unem­ployment Insurance Act based on a state­ment he gave to the investigator - He alleged a violation of his right to remain silent (Charter, s. 7), because he was com­pelled to make the statement - The Nova Scotia Provincial Court rejected the claim­ant's argument and held that there was no breach of the right to remain silent - See paragraphs 30 to 37.

Civil Rights - Topic 4302

Protection against self-incrimination - Right to remain silent - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3160 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 4613

Right to counsel - Requirement of arrest or detention - An Unemployment Insur­ance investigator suspected that a claimant illegally collected benefits - The investi­gator asked the claimant to come to her office to discuss the claim - Upon arrival the investigator advised the claimant that he did not have to say anything and of his right to counsel - He did not want counsel - He was charged with an offence under the Unemployment Insurance Act based on a statement he gave to the investigator - He alleged a violation of his right to counsel (Charter, s. 10(b)) - The Nova Scotia Provincial Court held that the claimant was not detained and therefore there was no duty on the investigator to advise him of his right to counsel and no breach of s. 10(b) - See paragraphs 19 to 29.

Unemployment Insurance - Topic 6101

Enforcement - Offences - Evidence and proof - General - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3160 and Civil Rights - Topic 4613 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Brydges, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 190; 103 N.R. 282; 104 A.R. 124; 53 C.C.C.(3d) 330; 74 C.R.(3d) 129; [1990] 2 W.W.R. 220; 71 Alta. L.R.(2d) 145, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Hebert, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 151; 110 N.R. 1; [1990] 5 W.W.R. 1; 57 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 77 C.R.(3d) 145; 49 C.R.R. 114; 47 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Therens, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 613; 59 N.R. 122; 40 Sask.R. 122; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 655; [1985] 4 W.W.R. 286; 32 M.V.R. 153; 45 C.R.(3d) 97; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Thomsen, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 640; 84 N.R. 347; 27 O.A.C. 85; 63 C.R.(3d) 1; 40 C.C.C.(3d) 411; 4 M.V.R.(2d) 185; 32 C.R.R. 257, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Moran (1987), 21 O.A.C. 257; 36 C.C.C.(3d) 225 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Beals (1991), 108 N.S.R.(2d) 66; 294 A.P.R. 66 (Co. Ct.), dist. [paras. 7, 30-33].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 7, sect. 10(b) [para. 2 et seq.]; sect. 24(2) [para. 3]

Unemployment Insurance Act, S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 48, sect. 41(5), sect. 41(6), sect. 105(1), sect. 106 [para. 2 et seq.]; sect. 103(1)(a) [para. 1].

Counsel:

P. Taylor, for the prosecution;

R. Burrill, for the defence.

This matter was heard on February 12, 1993, in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, before Gibson, J.P.C., who delivered the following judgment on May 19, 1993.