R. v. Doiron (E.),

JurisdictionNew Brunswick
JudgeLarlee, Daigle and Deschênes, JJ.A.
Neutral Citation2007 NBCA 41
Citation(2007), 315 N.B.R.(2d) 205 (CA),2007 NBCA 41,315 NBR (2d) 205,221 CCC (3d) 97,[2007] NBJ No 189 (QL),158 CRR (2d) 299,74 WCB (2d) 177,(2007), 315 NBR(2d) 205 (CA),[2007] N.B.J. No 189 (QL),315 N.B.R.(2d) 205,315 NBR(2d) 205
Date17 October 2006
CourtCourt of Appeal (New Brunswick)

R. v. Doiron (E.) (2007), 315 N.B.R.(2d) 205 (CA);

    315 R.N.-B.(2e) 205; 815 A.P.R. 205

MLB headnote and full text

Sommaire et texte intégral

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Temp. Cite: [2007] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. JN.004

Renvoi temp.: [2007] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. JN.004

Éric Doiron (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)

(59/05/CA; 2007 NBCA 41)

Indexed As: R. v. Doiron (E.)

Répertorié: R. v. Doiron (E.)

New Brunswick Court of Appeal

Larlee, Daigle and Deschênes, JJ.A.

May 31, 2007.

Summary:

Résumé:

An accused lawyer was convicted by a jury of obstructing justice.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, in a decision reported at 281 N.B.R.(2d) 210; 736 A.P.R. 210, sentenced the accused to 4.5 years' imprisonment. The accused appealed the conviction on various grounds, including that the court erred by dismissing his challenge to the validity of certain wiretap authorizations and the constitutionality of ss. 185(1.1), 186(1.1) and 186.1 of the Criminal Code (see 283 N.B.R.(2d) 156; 740 A.P.R. 156); admitting communications obtained pursuant to an authorization to intercept communications at a prison in Nova Scotia without the authorization having been confirmed by a judge in Nova Scotia (see 286 N.B.R.(2d) 8; 748 A.P.R. 8); not correcting inappropriate comments made by Crown counsel in his closing address; giving a Vetrovec warning respecting a witness favourable to the accused; and giving the jury a document entitled "Decision tree" without including a warning that the Crown had to prove the three essential elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused also applied for leave to appeal the sentence.

The New Brunswick Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, granted leave to appeal the sentence and dismissed the sentence appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 1373

Security of the person - Police surveillance - Interception of private communications - An accused asserted that the provisions of the Criminal Code which repealed the investigative necessity requirement in an application to conduct electronic surveillance in situations involving criminal organizations (ss. 185(1.1) and 186(1.1)) operated against constitutional guarantees for the purpose of ensuring protection against unreasonable search and seizure under s. 8 of the Charter - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal affirmed that the "investigative necessity" requirement was not a constitutional requirement - The provisions allowing the Crown to seek, and the authorizing judge to grant, an order authorizing wiretapping without the need to apply the investigative necessity criterion were not unreasonable and did not violate the rights guaranteed by s. 8 - See paragraphs 19 to 46.

Civil Rights - Topic 1373

Security of the person - Police surveillance - Interception of private communications - An authorization for a wiretap was effective for a maximum of 60 days (Criminal Code, s. 186(4)(e)), subject to renewal - Section 186.1 allowed for an authorization to be extended for periods up to one year in cases involving criminal organization and terrorism offences - The accused asserted that s. 186.1 contravened constitutional guarantees because it allowed, inter alia, for the elimination of the "basket clause" - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal rejected the assertion - The accused presented no convincing argument in support of his contention that limiting the duration of an authorization to a maximum of 60 days was a constitutional requirement and that extending it beyond that period was unreasonable within the meaning of s. 8 of the Charter - See paragraphs 47 to 49.

Civil Rights - Topic 1373

Security of the person - Police surveillance - Interception of private communications - Wiretap authorizations authorized the interception of communications between an accused lawyer and an inmate at a Provincial Court facility and elsewhere - The purpose of the interceptions was to determine whether the lawyer was engaged in criminal activity - All necessary steps were to be taken to prevent the interception of privileged communication between other solicitors and their clients - Communications between the accused and the inmate were not to be listened to until reviewed by a designated superior RCMP officer for a determination of privilege (clause 10) - The lawyer asserted that the procedure in clause 10 contravened s. 8 of the Charter - A motions judge concluded that the interceptions were admissible where (1) the room used for the wiretaps was not used by other solicitors advising their clients; and (2) the inmate subsequently waived privilege - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal stated the authorization's validity had to be determined based on its wording - The first factor considered by the motions judge did not change the fact that the order permitted interception in a room that was normally used by solicitors to meet with clients - The second factor did not alter the fact that the accused had not waived his privilege when the interceptions occurred - What mattered was the conditions imposed to comply with the requirements of the constitutional protection of private or confidential communications between other solicitors and clients - Clause 10 was not required to ensure the authorization's constitutionality and could be excised without affecting its validity - Alternatively, if s. 8 was contravened, the court would not have excluded the evidence pursuant to s. 24(2) - See paragraphs 58 to 113.

Criminal Law - Topic 4351

Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Direction regarding burden of proof and reasonable doubt - On an appeal from conviction, the accused asserted that the trial judge erred in giving the jury a document entitled "Decision tree" without including a warning that the Crown had to prove the three essential elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt - The decision tree was a working tool to help jurors in their decision making process by providing an orderly and sequential outline of the questions that they had to answer to reach a verdict - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal rejected the accused's assertion - The trial judge repeatedly explained the meaning of the expression "beyond a reasonable doubt" and its importance as it related to each one of the essential elements of the offence - Moreover, at the end of his jury instructions, he explained what the decision tree was and how the jurors should use it - See paragraphs 144 to 149.

Criminal Law - Topic 4354

Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Directions regarding pleas or evidence of witnesses, co-accused and accomplices - During an accused's second jury trial for the same offence, a Crown witness (Lefebvre) recanted his testimony -Lefebvre was declared a hostile witness and cross-examined by the Crown and the defence - The accused was convicted - The accused appealed, asserting that the trial judge erred by giving a clear and sharp Vetrovec warning respecting Lefebvre's testimony where the testimony favoured the defence - The accused asserted that this had the effect of dismissing the defence's theory and affected the rule of reasonable doubt - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal stated that the trial judge properly gave a firm warning concerning Lefebvre's testimony without indicating that it was risky to rely on it without corroboration - In the circumstances, this was not a Vetrovec warning - The trial judge merely urged the jury to use caution in considering the testimony of a witness favourable to the defence whose trustworthiness was problematic - This type of warning was in keeping with the caselaw - See paragraphs 137 to 140.

Criminal Law - Topic 4375.2

Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Directions regarding prior inconsistent statements - During the accused's second jury trial for the same offence a Crown witness (Lefebvre) recanted his prior testimony - Lefebvre was declared a hostile witness and cross-examined by Crown counsel (Levesque) and the defence - During his closing statement, Levesque stated that Lefebvre's prior statements were so detailed that they had to be true - The accused was convicted - The accused appealed, asserting that Crown had expressly invited the jury to consider his prior statements as evidence of their content - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - The trial judge instructed the jury that the prior statements could not be used as proof of their content - The instructions were beyond reproach - While the trial judge mentioned the rule only with reference to the accused's prior statements in the previous trial, without alluding to other prior out-of-court statements, the comments taken as a whole left no room for doubt that the rule had to be applied to all of Lefebvre's prior inconsistent statements - See paragraphs 134 to 136.

Criminal Law - Topic 4377

Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Directions regarding credibility of witnesses - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4354 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4399.6

Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Directions re elements of offence - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4351 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4412

Procedure - Opening and closing addresses - Summing up - Counsel - Closing address - Opinion respecting guilt - During the accused's second jury trial for the same offence, a Crown witness (Lefebvre) was declared a hostile witness and cross-examined by Crown counsel (Levesque) and the defence - In the course of the examination, Lefebvre challenged Levesque's integrity - During his closing arguments, Levesque commented on prosecutors having to be convinced that they had a reasonable probability of conviction before deciding to prosecute - The accused was convicted - The accused appealed, asserting that Levesque wrongly expressed his personal belief respecting the accused's guilt - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal stated that the impugned comment only referred to the standard applicable for instituting criminal proceedings - Nowhere did Levesque give his opinion on the ultimate issue of guilt - However, such comments were inappropriate (or improper) because they might be interpreted by the jury in such a way as to prejudice the accused - Nevertheless, the court rejected this ground of appeal where the accused had not suffered serious and irreparable harm - On the contrary, Levesque refrained from repeating his comment and stated, as did the trial judge, that it was for the jury to decide what was true and determine guilt in light of the evidence - See paragraph 121.

Criminal Law - Topic 4415

Procedure - Opening and closing addresses - Summing up - Counsel - Closing address - Respecting evidence of witnesses - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4375.2 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4415

Procedure - Opening and closing addresses - Summing up - Counsel - Closing address - Respecting evidence of witnesses - During the accused's second jury trial for the same offence a Crown witness (Lefebvre) was declared a hostile witness and cross-examined by Crown counsel (Levesque) and by defence counsel - In the course of the examination, Lefebvre challenged Levesque's integrity - In his closing address, Levesque referred to his own conduct, his personal integrity and the nature of his duty - The accused was convicted - The accused appealed, asserting that Levesque erred by giving his opinion on the accused's credibility when describing his duties and by making arguments unsupported by the evidence - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal stated that it was not surprising that Levesque defended his integrity and that of the investigating officers - However, it was impermissible to so do by using arguments unsupported by the evidence and by comparing his integrity as Crown prosecutor to that of Lefebvre - The trial judge should have reacted immediately and instructed the jurors to ignore the remarks while reminding them that they had to reach their verdict on the basis of the evidence alone - However, trial fairness was not compromised because Lefebvre had already cast serious doubt on his own integrity - Further, Levesque commenced his address by clearly emphasizing that what he was going to say did not constitute evidence - The trial judge reiterated that point - See paragraphs 122 to 128.

Criminal Law - Topic 4419

Procedure - Opening and closing addresses - Summing up - Counsel - Closing address - Intemperate or improper statements - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4412 and second Criminal Law - Topic 4415 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4419

Procedure - Opening and closing addresses - Summing up - Counsel - Closing address - Intemperate or improper statements - An accused lawyer was convicted of attempting to obstruct justice - The accused appealed, asserting that the Crown resorted to evidence of propensity or bad character by arguing before the jury that if the accused was capable of breaching the Code of Ethics by giving a third party documents that he had undertaken not to turn over without prior authorization, then he was capable of committing the offence for which he was charged - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal noted that defence counsel had properly objected to the Crown's comments - As a result, the trial judge gave specific instructions on the matter which were sufficient to dispel any prejudicial effect that the impugned comment might have had - It would have been wiser for the trial judge not to have left it up to the jury to assess the allegation of bad character - However, the judge unequivocally stated that the allegation as such did not imply that the accused was more likely to obstruct justice - Further, the accused's lack of morals was never an issue - Except for this one isolated comment, the matter was neither debated nor exploited by the Crown - See paragraphs 129 to 133.

Criminal Law - Topic 5274.2

Evidence and witnesses - Interception of private communications (incl. video surveillance) - Application for - Names of persons affected - An accused challenged the validity of a wiretap authorization for the interception of the Cormier brothers' private conversations, and those of numerous other individuals, concerning 19 offences, including participating in a criminal organization - The accused asserted that the affiant knew that the accused was a target when he applied for the authorization, but failed to name him - A motions judge concluded that the affiant either forgot or did not know about the accused and that neither was fatal to the authorization - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal affirmed the decision - The motions judge was in a position to conclude that there was evidence to establish that the affiant was unaware of the accused's criminal involvement with one of the Cormier brothers - The accused had not been singled out - Moreover, the affiant had no reasonable grounds to believe that the interception of the accused's communications might assist in the investigation for which the authorization was sought - See paragraphs 50 to 53.

Criminal Law - Topic 5274.4

Evidence and witnesses - Interception of private communications (incl. video surveillance) - Application for - Investigative necessity - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 1373 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5279

Evidence and witnesses - Interception of private communications (incl. video surveillance) - Foreign interceptions - Wiretap communications from the Springhill Institution in Nova Scotia were obtained pursuant to a wiretap authorization that had been issued in New Brunswick - The accused asserted that the police breached s. 188.1(2) of the Criminal Code by not applying in Nova Scotia for a new authorization or a confirmation order - A motions judge rejected the assertion - Section 188.1(2) was not mandatory - Section 188.1(1) provided that the authorization applied throughout Canada - Although the issuing judge was aware that the intercepts were to occur outside New Brunswick and would have turned his mind to the issue of a confirmation order, he did not include such a requirement - Where the police had to enter private dwellings or automobiles to place electronic devices it was normal to have the authorization backed or confirmed - This was not such a situation - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal affirmed the decision - See paragraphs 54 to 57.

Criminal Law - Topic 5281

Evidence and witnesses - Interception of private communications (incl. video surveillance) - Where solicitor-client privilege involved - [See third Civil Rights - Topic 1373 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5510

Evidence and witnesses - Evidence of accomplices, co-defendants, informants, etc. - Warning to jury of danger of reliance on - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4354 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5816.3

Sentencing - Sentencing procedure and rights of the accused - On new trial - Cormier was an acknowledged "drug kingpin" who was actively involved with criminal organizations - He hired Lefebvre to burn down his pub - The fire destroyed a number of businesses and residential accommodations - Cormier learned that Lefebvre was going to plead guilty to arson and became concerned that he might be implicated - Cormier retained a lawyer (Doiron) - It was determined that Doiron would become Lefebvre's lawyer - This would allow him to review the Crown's case to determine if Cormier was implicated - Doiron offered Lefebvre a bribe to keep him from testifying against Cormier in a possible arson trial - Doiron was convicted of obstructing justice - Savoie, J., sentenced the accused to three years' imprisonment - The conviction was set aside and a new trial ordered - The accused was again convicted - Rideout, J., emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, sentenced Doiron to 4.5 years' imprisonment - Doiron's being a lawyer made the offence more serious - He was an officer of the court and in a position of trust - He had taken an oath to uphold justice - Doiron's association with a criminal organization and the premeditation were also aggravating factors - Doiron appealed, asserting that there were no new facts that justified a sentence more severe than that imposed by Savoie, J. - The Crown conceded that a more severe sentence could only be justified on the basis of new evidence of aggravating facts or on a finding that the first sentence was clearly unreasonable - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - Savoie, J., erred by concluding that Doiron was a simple messenger - The evidence supported the conclusion that Doiron had acted for the benefit of or in association with a criminal organization - Rideout, J.'s, sentence was reasonable - Savoie, J.'s, sentence was unreasonable - See paragraphs 15 to 154.

Criminal Law - Topic 5831.1

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Offences involving breach of trust - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5816.3 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5910

Sentence - Obstructing justice - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5816.3 ].

Droits et libertés - Cote 1373

Sécurité de la personne - Surveillance policière - Interceptions de communications privées - [Voir Civil Rights - Topic 1373 ].

Droit criminel - Cote 4351

Procédure - Exposé ou directives - Juge seul ou avec jury - Directives concernant le fardeau de la preuve et le doute raisonnable - [Voir Criminal Law - Topic 4351 ].

Droit criminel - Cote 4354

Procédure - Exposé ou directives - Juge seul ou avec jury - Directives concernant les plaidoyers ou la preuve des témoins, des coaccusés ou des complices - [Voir Criminal Law - Topic 4354 ].

Droit criminel - Cote 4375.2

Procédure - Exposé ou directives - Juge seul ou avec jury - Directives concernant les déclarations antérieures incompatibles - [Voir Criminal Law - Topic 4375.2 ].

Droit criminel - Cote 4377

Procédure - Exposé ou directives - Juge seul ou avec jury - Directives concernant la crédibilité des témoins - [Voir Criminal Law - Topic 4377 ].

Droit criminel - Cote 4399.6

Procédure - Exposé ou directives - Juge seul ou avec jury - Instructions concernant les éléments de l'infraction - [Voir Criminal Law - Topic 4399.6 ].

Droit criminel - Cote 4412

Procédure - Observations introductives et finales - Résumé - Avocat - Observations finales - Opinion concernant la culpabilité - [Voir Criminal Law - Topic 4412 ].

Droit criminel - Cote 4415

Procédure - Observations introductives et finales - Résumé - Avocat - Observations finales - Concernant la preuve des témoins - [Voir Criminal Law - Topic 4415 ].

Droit criminel - Cote 4419

Procédure - Observations introductives et finales - Résumé - Avocat - Observations finales - Déclarations intempestives ou irrégulières - [Voir Criminal Law - Topic 4419 ].

Droit criminel - Cote 5274.2

Preuve et témoins - Interception de communications privées (y compris par surveillance vidéo) - Demande d'interception de communications privées - Noms des personnes concernées - [Voir Criminal Law -Topic 5274.2 ].

Droit criminel - Cote 5274.4

Preuve et témoins - Interception de communications privées (y compris par surveillance vidéo) - Demande d'interception de communications privées - Nécessité pour l'enquête - [Voir Criminal Law - Topic 5274.4 ].

Droit criminel - Cote 5279

Preuve et témoins - Interception de communications privées (y compris par surveillance vidéo) - Interceptions autorisées dans une autre circonscription territoriale - [Voir Criminal Law - Topic 5279 ].

Droit criminel - Cote 5281

Preuve et témoins - Interception de communications privées (y compris par surveillance vidéo) - Lorsqu'il y a secret professionnel de l'avocat - [Voir Criminal Law - Topic 5281 ].

Droit criminel - Cote 5510

Preuve et témoins - Preuve des complices, des codéfendeurs, des informateurs, etc. - Mise en garde au jury concernant le danger de se fonder sur la preuve donnée par les complices, les codéfendeurs, les informateurs, etc. - [Voir Criminal Law - Topic 5510 ].

Droit criminel - Cote 5816.3

Détermination de la peine - Procédure et droits du prévenu - À l'occasion du nouveau procès - [Voir Criminal Law - Topic 5816.3 ].

Droit criminel - Cote 5831.1

Détermination de la peine - Facteurs considérés lors de l'infliction de la peine - Infractions comportant un abus de confiance - [Voir Criminal Law - Topic 5831.1 ].

Droit criminel - Cote 5910

Peine - Entrave à la justice - [Voir Criminal Law - Topic 5910 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Pangman (W.G.) et al. (2000), 147 Man.R.(2d) 93; 2000 MBQB 85, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Doucet (2003), 18 C.R.(6th) 103; 2003 CarswellQue 2854 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276, refd to. [para. 20].

Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Sanelli, Duarte and Fasciano, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 30; 103 N.R. 86; 37 O.A.C. 322, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Duarte - see R. v. Sanelli, Duarte and Fasciano.

R. v. Garofoli et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1421; 116 N.R. 241; 43 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Gray (R.) and Gray (H.) (1998), 208 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 531 A.P.R. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

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. 28].

R. v. S.A.B. et al., [2003] 2 S.C.R. 678; 311 N.R. 1; 339 A.R. 1; 312 W.A.C. 1; 2003 SCC 60, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Henry (D.B.) et al., [2005] 3 S.C.R. 609; 342 N.R. 259; 376 A.R. 1; 360 W.A.C. 1; 219 B.C.A.C. 1; 361 W.A.C. 1; 2005 SCC 76, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Finlay and Grellette (1985), 11 O.A.C. 279; 52 O.R.(2d) 632; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 48 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1986] 1 S.C.R. ix; 65 N.R. 159; 15 O.A.C. 238, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Bordage, [2000] J.Q. No. 2045 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Largie (G.) et al., [2004] O.T.C. 1193; 64 W.C.B.(2d) 201 (Sup. Ct.), agreed with [para. 44].

R. v. G.L. - see R. v. Largie (G.) et al.

R. v. Grabowski, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 434; 63 N.R. 32, refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Chesson and Vanweenan, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 148; 87 N.R. 115; 90 A.R. 347, refd to. [para. 51].

R. v. Pham (B.D.) et al. (1997), 101 B.C.A.C. 155; 164 W.A.C. 155; 122 C.C.C.(3d) 90 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1998] 1 S.C.R. xiii, refd to. [para. 56].

R. v. Chang (A.) and Kullman (G.) (2003), 170 O.A.C. 37; 173 C.C.C.(3d) 397 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 56].

R. v. Chambers, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 29; 67 N.R. 382, affing. (1983), 9 C.C.C.(3d) 132 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [paras. 76, 78].

R. v. Robillard (2000), 151 C.C.C.(3d) 296 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 85].

Descôteaux et al. v. Mierzwinski et al., [1982] 1 S.C.R. 860; 44 N.R. 462, refd to. [para. 89].

Lavallee, Rackel & Heintz et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2002] 3 S.C.R. 209; 292 N.R. 296; 312 A.R. 201; 281 W.A.C. 201; 217 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 183; 651 A.P.R. 183; 164 O.A.C. 280; 2002 SCC 61, dist. [para. 89].

R. v. Shalala (R.) (1997), 198 N.B.R.(2d) 93; 506 A.P.R. 93 (T.D.), affd. (2000), 224 N.B.R.(2d) 118; 574 A.P.R. 118 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 98, 103].

R. v. Lachance, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1490; 116 N.R. 325; 43 O.A.C. 241; 36 Q.A.C. 243, refd to. [para. 107].

Boucher v. R., [1955] S.C.R. 16, refd to. [para. 121].

R. v. Charest (A.) (1990), 28 Q.A.C. 258; 76 C.R.(3d) 63 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 122].

R. v. Rose (J.), [1998] 3 S.C.R. 262; 232 N.R. 83; 115 O.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 124].

R. v. Wristen (A.N.) (1999), 127 O.A.C. 314; 141 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 47 O.R.(3d) 66 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 137].

R. v. Pollock (R.) et al. (2004), 188 O.A.C. 37; 187 C.C.C.(3d) 213 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 137].

R. v. Lavallee (C.H.) (2001), 203 Sask.R. 247; 240 W.A.C. 247; 153 C.C.C.(3d) 120; 2001 SKCA 43, refd to. [para. 137].

R. v. Vetrovec; R. v. Gaja, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 811; 41 N.R. 606, refd to. [para. 137].

R. v. Brooks (F.A.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 237; 250 N.R. 103; 129 O.A.C. 205; 2000 SCC 11, refd to. [para. 137].

R. v. Suzack (C.V.) et al. (2000), 128 O.A.C. 140; 141 C.C.C.(3d) 449 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 140].

R. v. Sheard (M.) (2002), 163 Man.R.(2d) 84; 269 W.A.C. 84; 2002 MBCA 22, refd to. [para. 145].

R. v. Valère, [1996] J.Q. No. 1365 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 152].

R. v. Daoulov, [2002] J.Q. No. 1203 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 152].

R. v. Eng (M.B.) (2000), 137 B.C.A.C. 163; 223 W.A.C. 163; 2000 BCCA 31, refd to. [para. 152].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 185(1.1), sect. 186(1.1), sect. 186.1 [para. 19 et seq., Appendix A]; sect. 188.1(2) [para. 55].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Whitling, N.J., Wiretapping, Investigative Necessity, and the Charter (2002), 46 Crim. L.Q. 89, generally [para. 31].

Counsel:

Avocats:

Josée Ferrari, for the appellant;

François Lacasse and R. Keith Ward, for the respondent.

These appeals were heard on October 17, 2006, by Larlee, Daigle and Deschênes, JJ.A., of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal. Deschênes, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the court in both official languages on May 31, 2007.

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 practice notes
  • The Prosecutor
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Ethics and Criminal Law. Second Edition
    • 19 Junio 2015
    ...notes but also in many ethical codes: Alta, Sask r 4.01(1) (commentary); BC, Man, Ont, NS, NL r 5.1-1, commentary 5. 385 See R v Dorion , 2007 NBCA 41 at paras 120–21, leave to appeal to SCC refused, [2007] SCCA No 413 [ Dorion ]; Barnes , above note 244 at paras 14–15. ETHICS A ND CRIMINAL......
  • Table of cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Ethics and Criminal Law. Second Edition
    • 19 Junio 2015
    ...R v Dobrotic (1995), 162 NBR (2d) 379, [1995] NBJ No 222 (CA) .....................321 R v Dorion, 2007 NBCA 41, leave to appeal to SCC refused, [2007] SCCA No 413 ..................................................................... 27, 649, 650 R v Dosanjh, 2002 BCSC 25 ........................
  • Defending the Guilty
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Ethics and Criminal Law. Second Edition
    • 19 Junio 2015
    ...evidence (s 137), and obstructing justice (s 139). See, for example, R v Sweezey (1987), 39 CCC (3d) 182 at 188 (NLCA); R v Dorion , 2007 NBCA 41, leave to appeal to SCC refused, [2007] SCCA No 413. 56 This interdiction is expressly set out in the ethical rules cited at notes 7 & 8, above i......
  • R. v. Pereira (L.S.) et al., 2008 BCSC 184
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • 19 Febrero 2008
    ...], which is binding on me. I also rely on R. v. Lindsay (2004), 182 C.C.C. (3d) 301, 70 O.R. (3d) 131 (S.C.J.) [ Lindsay ]; R. v. Doiron , 2007 NBCA 41, 221 C.C.C. (3d) 97, application for leave to appeal to S.C.C. dismissed, 32195 (November 29, 2007), [2007] S.C.C.A. No. 413 [ Doiron ]; R.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
15 cases
  • R. v. Pereira (L.S.) et al., 2008 BCSC 184
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • 19 Febrero 2008
    ...], which is binding on me. I also rely on R. v. Lindsay (2004), 182 C.C.C. (3d) 301, 70 O.R. (3d) 131 (S.C.J.) [ Lindsay ]; R. v. Doiron , 2007 NBCA 41, 221 C.C.C. (3d) 97, application for leave to appeal to S.C.C. dismissed, 32195 (November 29, 2007), [2007] S.C.C.A. No. 413 [ Doiron ]; R.......
  • R. v. Melanson (S.A.), 2007 NBCA 94
    • Canada
    • New Brunswick Court of Appeal (New Brunswick)
    • 24 Abril 2007
    ...refd to. [para. 61]. R. v. Pitt (G.W.) (1996), 181 N.B.R.(2d) 126; 460 A.P.R. 126 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 61]. R. v. Doiron (E.) (2007), 315 N.B.R.(2d) 205; 815 A.P.R. 205; 2007 NBCA 41, refd to. [para. R. v. Charest (A.) (1990), 28 Q.A.C. 258 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 70]. R. v. Rose (J.), [......
  • R. v. Montgomery (C.R.), 2016 BCCA 379
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
    • 20 Septiembre 2016
    ...(Ont. C.A.), at paras. 8-9. [Emphasis added.] See also: R. v. Beauchamp , 2015 ONCA 260 at para. 105, 326 C.C.C.(3d) 280; R. v. Doiron , 2007 NBCA 41 at para. 51, 221 C.C.C.(3d) 97, leave to appeal ref'd [2007] 3 S.C.R. viii. [81] The reasonable-grounds standard is well known. As discussed ......
  • Dedam v. R.,
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (New Brunswick)
    • 11 Agosto 2022
    ...The Crown acknowledges the absence of “new evidence” of aggravating facts as contemplated by this Court in Doiron v. R., 2007 NBCA 41, 315 N.B.R. (2d) 205, as a reason to justify an increased sentence after a second trial. [102]         ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • The Prosecutor
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Ethics and Criminal Law. Second Edition
    • 19 Junio 2015
    ...notes but also in many ethical codes: Alta, Sask r 4.01(1) (commentary); BC, Man, Ont, NS, NL r 5.1-1, commentary 5. 385 See R v Dorion , 2007 NBCA 41 at paras 120–21, leave to appeal to SCC refused, [2007] SCCA No 413 [ Dorion ]; Barnes , above note 244 at paras 14–15. ETHICS A ND CRIMINAL......
  • Table of cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Ethics and Criminal Law. Second Edition
    • 19 Junio 2015
    ...R v Dobrotic (1995), 162 NBR (2d) 379, [1995] NBJ No 222 (CA) .....................321 R v Dorion, 2007 NBCA 41, leave to appeal to SCC refused, [2007] SCCA No 413 ..................................................................... 27, 649, 650 R v Dosanjh, 2002 BCSC 25 ........................
  • Defending the Guilty
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Ethics and Criminal Law. Second Edition
    • 19 Junio 2015
    ...evidence (s 137), and obstructing justice (s 139). See, for example, R v Sweezey (1987), 39 CCC (3d) 182 at 188 (NLCA); R v Dorion , 2007 NBCA 41, leave to appeal to SCC refused, [2007] SCCA No 413. 56 This interdiction is expressly set out in the ethical rules cited at notes 7 & 8, above i......

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