R. v. Dixon (S.), (1998) 222 N.R. 243 (SCC)

JudgeIacobucci and Major, JJ.
CourtSupreme Court (Canada)
Case DateFebruary 19, 1998
JurisdictionCanada (Federal)
Citations(1998), 222 N.R. 243 (SCC);222 NR 243;JE 98-460;50 CRR (2d) 108;[1998] ACS no 17;[1998] 1 SCR 244;[1998] CarswellNS 7;37 WCB (2d) 204;[1998] SCJ No 17 (QL);166 NSR (2d) 241;122 CCC (3d) 1;1998 CanLII 805 (SCC);13 CR (5th) 217;498 APR 241

R. v. Dixon (S.) (1998), 222 N.R. 243 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Temp. Cite: [1998] N.R. TBEd. FE.021

Spencer Dixon (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent)

(25834)

Indexed As: R. v. Dixon (S.)

Supreme Court of Canada

Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin,

Iacobucci and Major, JJ.

February 19, 1998.

Summary:

Dixon and five others were charged jointly with aggravated assault following a vicious beating that left the victim brain-damaged.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, in a judgment reported 148 N.S.R.(2d) 321; 429 A.P.R. 321, convicted all accused. In a subsequent decision (149 N.S.R.(2d) 104; 432 A.P.R. 104), the court sentenced Dixon to seven years' imprisonment. Dixon appealed against conviction and sentence. Dixon claimed that the trial judge (1) failed to consider relevant evidence; (2) misapplied the law respecting identification evidence; (3) erred in using out-of-court statements of Dixon's co-accused; (4) reached an unrea­sonable verdict; (5) that the Crown failed to make timely disclosure of four witness statements; and (6) the sentence was mani­festly excessive.

The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, Bate­man, J.A., dissenting, in a judgment reported 156 N.S.R.(2d) 81; 461 A.P.R. 81, dismissed both the conviction and sentence appeals. The first four grounds of appeal were dis­missed without discussion for the reasons stated in the appeal of one of the other accused (see R. v. Cole (D.) (1996), 152 N.S.R.(2d) 321; 442 A.P.R. 321). The court held that the nondisclosed statements were of no weight and there was no reasonable probability that, had this information been available at or before the trial, the trial outcome might have been different. Dixon received a fair trial notwithstanding the nondisclosure. Bateman, J.A., would have ordered a new trial, stating that the majority test requiring an accused to show a "reason­able probability" that the result might be different was setting too high a standard; that the test should be "the accused (appel­lant) must satisfy the court that, as a result of the nondisclosure, he lost a realistic op­portunity to garner evidence or make deci­sions about the defence, which, in turn, rendered the trial process unfair or might have affected the outcome of the trial". The accused appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal. The Crown breached its duty to disclose, but that did not mean the accused's right to make full answer and defence was violated. The nondisclosed information was of limited relevance, defence counsel made a tactical decision not to push for disclosure, there was no reasonable possibility that the trial result would have been affected and there was no trial unfairness. Accordingly, there was no basis to order a new trial under s. 24(1) of the Charter.

Civil Rights - Topic 3133

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Right of accused to make full answer and defence - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Crown's failure to disclose information did not necessarily mean the accused's right to make full answer and defence was denied - The accused had the additional burden of establishing a reasonable possibility that nondisclosure affected the trial outcome or the overall fairness of the trial process - The court stated that "the reasonable pos­sibility to be shown under this test must not be entirely speculative. It must be based on reasonably possible uses of the nondisclosed evidence or reasonably poss­ible avenues of investigation that were closed to the accused as a result of the nondisclosure. ... the reasonable possibility that the undisclosed information impaired the right to make full answer and defence relates not only to the content of the infor­mation itself, but to the realistic opportun­ities to explore possible uses of the undis­closed information for purposes of investi­gation and gathering evidence." - See paragraphs 33 to 36.

Civil Rights - Topic 8380.20

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - New trial - [See first Criminal Law - Topic 4505 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4505

Procedure - Trial - Special duties of Crown - Duty to disclose evidence prior to trial - The Supreme Court of Canada restated that the Crown was obliged to disclose all relevant material in its pos­session, so long as the material was not privileged - Material was relevant if it could reasonably be used by the defence to meet the Crown's case - The threshold requirement for disclosure was quite low - Where there was a reasonable possibility of the information being useful in making full answer and defence, there was a breach of the accused's s. 7 Charter right to dis­closure - However, if there was a breach of the duty of disclosure which could not possibly affect the reliability of the result reached or the overall fairness of the trial process, there would be no basis to order a new trial under s. 24(1) of the Charter, since no harm would have been suffered by the accused - A breach of the duty to disclose was not synonymous with a vio­lation of the Charter right to make full answer and defence - See paragraphs 20 to 24.

Criminal Law - Topic 4505

Procedure - Trial - Special duties of Crown - Duty to disclose evidence prior to trial - The accused was convicted of aggra­vated assault - The Crown innocently failed to disclose four witness statements - Knowledge of the existence of the witness statements came to counsel during the trial - Counsel chose not to seek production, raising the issue of due diligence and whether a tactical decision was made not to pursue them - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal held that counsel appeared to make a tactical decision not to pursue disclosure, which was an important factor in determin­ing whether to order a new trial - The second important factor was the materiality of the nondisclosed statements - The court held that the accused must establish that there was a reasonable prob­ability that had the statements been dis­closed, the trial outcome might have been different - The Crown need not prove lack of prejudice to the accused - The court stated that the statements would not have assisted the accused in advancing a defence and did not damage the Crown's case by diminishing the credibility of its witnesses - The accused received a fair trial - The state­ments were of no weight and any sug­gested use of them to the benefit of the accused was highly specu­lative - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the decision - The information did not render the result unreliable and did not affect the fairness of the trial - See paragraphs 25 to 56.

Criminal Law - Topic 4505

Procedure - Trial - Special duties of Crown - Duty to disclose evidence prior to trial - The Supreme Court of Canada dis­cussed defence counsel's duty respecting Crown disclosure - The court stated that "if defence counsel knew or ought to have known on the basis of other disclosures that the Crown through inadvertence had failed to disclose information yet remained passive as a result of a tactical decision or lack of due diligence it would be difficult to accept a submission that the failure to disclose affected the fairness of the trial" - See paragraphs 38.

Cases Noticed:

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. 20].

R. v. Egger (J.H.), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 451; 153 N.R. 272; 141 A.R. 81; 46 W.A.C. 81; 82 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 103 D.L.R.(4th) 678; 21 C.R.(4th) 186, refd to. [para. 20].

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. 21].

R. v. Carosella (N.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 80; 207 N.R. 321; 98 O.A.C. 81; 112 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 142 D.L.R.(4th) 595, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Collins (M.E.), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1104; 183 N.R. 285; 82 O.A.C. 365; 99 C.C.C.(3d) 385, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. M.H.C., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 763; 123 N.R. 63; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 4 C.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Bramwell (H.L.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1126; 204 N.R. 373; 83 B.C.A.C. 81; 136 W.A.C. 81, affming. 72 B.C.A.C. 125; 119 W.A.C. 125; 106 C.C.C.(3d) 365 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. S.E.S. (1992), 100 Sask.R. 110; 18 W.A.C. 110 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. McAnespie (R.B.), [1993] 4 S.C.R. 501; 162 N.R. 155; 68 O.A.C. 185; 86 C.C.C.(3d) 191, refd to. [para. 38].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 21(1) [para. 40].

Counsel:

Lance Scaravelli, for the appellant;

Kenneth W.F. Fiske, Q.C., and Richard B. Miller, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Scaravelli & Associates, Halifax, N.S., for the appellant;

The Nova Scotia Public Prosecution Ser­vice, Halifax, N.S., for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on December 5, 1998, before Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On February 19, 1998, Cory, J., delivered the following judgment in both official languages for the Supreme Court of Canada.

To continue reading

Request your trial
615 practice notes
  • R. v. Gratton (A.L.), (2002) 329 A.R. 208 (QB)
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • December 3, 2002
    ...565; 45 D.L.R.(4th) 445; 60 C.R.(3d) 59; 32 C.R.R. 381; 2 M.V.R.(2d) 289, refd to. [para. 209, footnote 44]. R. v. Dixon (S.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 244; 222 N.R. 243; 166 N.S.R.(2d) 241; 498 A.P.R. 241; 122 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 13 C.R.(5th) 217; 50 C.R.R.(2d) 208, refd to. [para. 209, footnote 45]. R. ......
  • R. v. Paxton (D.W.), (2012) 531 A.R. 233 (QB)
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • December 22, 2011
    ...[para. 288]. 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. [para. 288]. R. v. Dixon (S.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 244; 222 N.R. 243; 166 N.S.R.(2d) 241; 498 A.P.R. 241, refd to. [para. R. v. McAnespie (R.B.), [1993] 4 S.C.R. 501; 162 N.R. 155; 68 O.A.C. ......
  • R. v. Song (D.), (2001) 296 A.R. 132 (QB)
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • July 25, 2001
    ...N.R. 321; 98 O.A.C. 81; 112 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 4 C.R.(5th) 139; 142 D.L.R.(4th) 595, refd to. [para. 58, footnote 34]. R. v. Dixon (S.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 244; 222 N.R. 243; 166 N.S.R.(2d) 241; 498 A.P.R. 241; 122 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 13 C.R.(5th) 241, refd to. [para. 58, footnote 35]. R. v. Smith (C.J......
  • R. v. Epp (C.), 2010 SKPC 89
    • Canada
    • Saskatchewan Provincial Court of Saskatchewan (Canada)
    • September 21, 2010
    ...2006 SKPC 69, consd. [para. 98]. R. v. Banford (R.) (2010), 363 Sask.R. 26; 2010 SKPC 110, consd. [para. 98]. R. v. Dixon (S.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 244; 222 N.R. 243; 166 N.S.R.(2d) 241; 498 A.P.R. 241, refd to. [para. R. v. Taillefer (B.), [2003] 3 S.C.R. 307; 313 N.R. 1; 2003 SCC 70, refd to.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
544 cases
  • R. v. Gratton (A.L.), (2002) 329 A.R. 208 (QB)
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • December 3, 2002
    ...565; 45 D.L.R.(4th) 445; 60 C.R.(3d) 59; 32 C.R.R. 381; 2 M.V.R.(2d) 289, refd to. [para. 209, footnote 44]. R. v. Dixon (S.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 244; 222 N.R. 243; 166 N.S.R.(2d) 241; 498 A.P.R. 241; 122 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 13 C.R.(5th) 217; 50 C.R.R.(2d) 208, refd to. [para. 209, footnote 45]. R. ......
  • R. v. Paxton (D.W.), (2012) 531 A.R. 233 (QB)
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • December 22, 2011
    ...[para. 288]. 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. [para. 288]. R. v. Dixon (S.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 244; 222 N.R. 243; 166 N.S.R.(2d) 241; 498 A.P.R. 241, refd to. [para. R. v. McAnespie (R.B.), [1993] 4 S.C.R. 501; 162 N.R. 155; 68 O.A.C. ......
  • R. v. Song (D.), (2001) 296 A.R. 132 (QB)
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • July 25, 2001
    ...N.R. 321; 98 O.A.C. 81; 112 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 4 C.R.(5th) 139; 142 D.L.R.(4th) 595, refd to. [para. 58, footnote 34]. R. v. Dixon (S.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 244; 222 N.R. 243; 166 N.S.R.(2d) 241; 498 A.P.R. 241; 122 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 13 C.R.(5th) 241, refd to. [para. 58, footnote 35]. R. v. Smith (C.J......
  • R. v. Epp (C.), 2010 SKPC 89
    • Canada
    • Saskatchewan Provincial Court of Saskatchewan (Canada)
    • September 21, 2010
    ...2006 SKPC 69, consd. [para. 98]. R. v. Banford (R.) (2010), 363 Sask.R. 26; 2010 SKPC 110, consd. [para. 98]. R. v. Dixon (S.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 244; 222 N.R. 243; 166 N.S.R.(2d) 241; 498 A.P.R. 241, refd to. [para. R. v. Taillefer (B.), [2003] 3 S.C.R. 307; 313 N.R. 1; 2003 SCC 70, refd to.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 firm's commentaries
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (April 27 ' May 1)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • May 12, 2020
    ...[1994] 1 S.C.R. 129, R. v. Gager, 2012 ONSC 2712, R. v. Chiasson, 2009 ONCA 789, R. v. Jeanvenne, 2010 ONCA 706, R. v. Dixon, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 244, R. v. McNeil, 2009 SCC 3, R. v. Jackson, 2015 ONCA 832, R. v. Pittiman, 2006 SCC 9, R. v. Shafia, 2016 ONCA 812, Yukon Francophone School Board,......
  • COURT OF APPEAL SUMMARIES (APRIL 27 – MAY 1)
    • Canada
    • LexBlog Canada
    • May 4, 2020
    ...[1994] 1 S.C.R. 129, R. v. Gager, 2012 ONSC 2712, R. v. Chiasson, 2009 ONCA 789, R. v. Jeanvenne, 2010 ONCA 706, R. v. Dixon, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 244, R. v. McNeil, 2009 SCC 3, R. v. Jackson, 2015 ONCA 832, R. v. Pittiman, 2006 SCC 9, R. v. Shafia, 2016 ONCA 812, Yukon Francophone School Board,......
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (May 4 ' 8, 2020)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • May 15, 2020
    ...12(1), R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326, R. v. Gubbins, 2018 SCC 44, R. v. McNeil, 2009 SCC 3, [2009] 1 S.C.R. 66, R. v. Dixon, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 244 R. v. H., 2020 ONCA 292 (Publication Ban) Keywords: Criminal Law, Attempted Child Abduction, Breaching Prohibition Order, Varying Orders,......
  • Ontario Court Of Appeal Summaries (July 24 – 28, 2017)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • August 15, 2017
    ...by the Trial Judge, Right to Make Full Answer and Defence, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 7 and 24(1), R v Dixon, [1998] 1 SCR 244, R v Taillefer, 2003 SCC 70, R v McGibbon (1988), 45 CCC (3d) 334 (Ont CA), Pintea v Johns, 2017 SCC 23, Moore v Apollo Health & Beauty Care, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
62 books & journal articles
  • Table of cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Fundamental Justice: Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Second Edition
    • June 22, 2019
    ...94 CCC (3d) 96, [1994] SCJ No 108 ....................................................................................... 324 R v Dixon, [1998] 1 SCR 244, 122 CCC (3d) 1, [1998] SCJ No 17 .................... 306 R v DM, 2012 ONCA 894 ..............................................................
  • Table of Cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books National Security Law. Second Edition Accountability
    • August 5, 2021
    ...2006 SCC 53......................... 212 R v DeSousa, [1992] 2 SCR 944, 95 DLR (4th) 595, [1992] SCJ No 77 .............. 207 R v Dixon, [1998] 1 SCR 244 .............................................................................. 662 R v Duarte, [1990] 1 SCR 30, 65 DLR (4th) 240, [1990] ......
  • The Special Part: Homicide, Sexual, Property, and Terrorism Offences
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Criminal Law. Eighth edition
    • September 1, 2022
    ...63 Chow Bew v The Queen, [1956] SCR 124; R v Issac , [1984] 1 SCR 74 at 80–81; R v McMaster , [1996] 1 SCR 740 at para 33; R v McQuaid , [1998] 1 SCR 244; R v Biniaris , [2000] 1 SCR 381; R v Suzack (2000), 141 CCC (3d) 449 (Ont CA); R v H(LI) (2003), 17 CR (6th) 338 at para 60 (Man CA); R ......
  • Appeals
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Criminal Procedure. Fourth Edition
    • June 23, 2020
    ...the evidence on both sides and has not taken any extraneous 163 R v Stolar , [1988] 1 SCR 480. 164 2003 SCC 70. See also R v Dixon , [1998] 1 SCR 244. 165 See, for example, R v Schneider (2004), 192 CCC (3d) 1 (NSCA); R v Wolf (2005), 197 CCC (3d) 481 (Ont CA); and R v MacInnis (2006), 212 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT