R. v. Duguay, Murphy and Sevigny

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Judge: Dickson, C.J.C., McIntyre, Lamer, Wilson, La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé and Sopinka, JJ.
• Citation: (1989), 91 N.R. 201 (SCC),[1989] CarswellOnt 68,[1989] 1 SCR 93,1988 CanLII 57 (SCC),91 NR 201,56 DLR (4th) 46,[1989] SCJ No 4 (QL),38 CRR 1,1989 CanLII 110 (SCC),46 CCC (3d) 1,67 CR (3d) 252,[1988] 2 SCR 174,31 OAC 177,67 OR (2d) 160
• Date: 14 October 1988
• Subject Matter: COURTS,CIVIL RIGHTS

R. v. Duguay (1989), 91 N.R. 201 (SCC)

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. Robert Joseph Duguay, Edward James Murphy and Robert Stephen Sevigny (respondents)

(No. 19422)

Indexed As: R. v. Duguay, Murphy and Sevigny

Supreme Court of Canada

Dickson, C.J.C., McIntyre, Lamer, Wilson, La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé and Sopinka, JJ.

January 26, 1989.

Summary:

After a house burglary police officers arrested three 17 year old boys. The police had no evidence that the boys committed the burglary, only a suspicion. Confessions were obtained, which led to recovery of the stolen goods and fingerprint evidence. The trial judge held that the arrest was contrary to s. 9 of the Charter and acquitted the accused after excluding all of the Crown's evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter. The Crown appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, Zuber, J.A., dissenting, dismissed the appeal (See 8 O.A.C. 31; 50 O.R.(2d) 375; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 32; 17 C.R.R. 203; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 45 C.R.(3d) 140). The Crown appealed respecting the exclusion of evidence under s. 24(2).

The Supreme Court of Canada, L'Heureux-Dubé J., dissenting, dismissed the appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Charter - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "it is not the function of this court, though it has jurisdiction to do so, absent some apparent error as to the applicable principles or rules of law, or absent a finding that is unreasonable, to review findings of the courts below under s. 24(2) of the Charter and substitute its opinion of the matter for that arrived at by the Court of Appeal" - See paragraph 2.

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Charter - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - Police arrested three 17 year old boys on the mere suspicion of burglary, hoping to obtain further evidence - They were successful as confessions were obtained which led to recovery of the stolen goods and fingerprint evidence - The Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed that the boys were arbitrarily detained contrary to s. 9 of the Charter and the evidence obtained should be excluded under s. 24(2) - The court considered that the arrests were not made in good faith, the offences were not serious and there was no urgency - The Supreme Court of Canada, L'Heureux-Dubé J., dissenting, affirmed the Court of Appeal's decision.

Courts - Topic 3039

Supreme Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Charter cases - Exclusion of evidence (s. 24(2)) - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 8368 above].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Rothman, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 640; 35 N.R. 485, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276, refd to. [para. 31 et seq.].

R. v. Sieben, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 295; 74 N.R. 271, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Hamill, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 301; 75 N.R. 149, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Pohoretsky, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 945; 75 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Manninen, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1233; 76 N.R. 198; 21 O.A.C. 192, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Tremblay, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 435; 79 N.R. 153, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Upston, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 1083; 86 N.R. 16, refd to. [paras. 31, 77, 78].

R. v. Simmons (1988), 89 N.R. 1, refd to. [paras. 31, 66, 73, 89].

R. v. Jacoy (1988), 89 N.R. 61, refd to. [paras. 31, 74].

R. v. Genest (1989), 91 N.R. 161, refd to. [paras. 31, 60, 64].

McArdle v. Egan (1933), 150 L.T. 412, refd to. [para. 43].

Hussien v. Chong Fook Kam, [1970] A.C. 942, refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Biron, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 56; 4 N.R. 45, refd to. [para. 48].

Eccles v. Bourque, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 739; 3 N.R. 259, refd to. [para. 49].

Campbell v. Hudyma (1985), 66 A.R. 222; 42 Alta. L.R.(2d) 59 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 50, 56].

R. v. Brown (1987), 76 N.S.R.(2d) 64; 189 A.P.R. 64; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 54 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 50, 56].

R. v. Hufsky, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 621; 84 N.R. 365; 27 O.A.C. 103, refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. Strachan (1986), 49 C.R.(3d) 289 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 64].

Re Jamieson and the Queen (1982), 70 C.C.C.(2d) 430 (Que. S.C.), refd to. [para. 70].

Re M.H. and the Queen (No. 2) (1985), 21 C.C.C.(3d) 384 (C.A.), affing. (1984), 17 C.C.C.(3d) 443 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 71].

R. v. McGregor (1983), 3 C.C.C.(3d) 200 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 71].

R. v. Beare; R. v. Higgins, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 387; 88 N.R. 205, refd to. [para. 72].

U.S. v. Leon (1984), 468 U.S. 897, refd to. [para. 75].

R. v. Curr, [1972] S.C.R. 889, refd to. [para. 79].

R. v. Esposito (1985), 12 O.A.C. 350; 24 C.C.C.(3d) 88, refd to. [paras. 79, 87, 88].

R. v. Smith (1986), 38 Man.R.(2d) 184; 25 C.C.C.(3d) 361 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 84, 86, 88].

R. v. Bazinet (1986), 14 O.A.C. 15; 25 C.C.C.(3d) 273 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [paras. 85, 86, 88].

R. v. Dedman (1981), 59 C.C.C.(2d) 97, affd. [1985] 2 S.C.R. 2; 60 N.R. 34; 11 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 89].

R. v. Gladstone (1985), 22 C.C.C.(3d) 151, refd to. [para. 89].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 9 [para. 1 et seq.]; sect. 10(b) [paras. 79, 85, 87]; sect. 11(c) [para. 79]; sect. 11(d), sect. 13 [para. 70]; sect. 24(2) [para. 1 et seq.].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 450 [paras. 11, 13]; sect. 450(1)(a) [paras. 39-55, 89]; sect. 455.5(5) [paras. 70, 72].

United States Constitution, Fourth Amendment [para. 75].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Tarnopolsky, Walter Surma, The Canadian Bill of Rights (2nd Ed. 1975), p. 235 [para. 13].

Counsel:

Bruce Duncan, for the appellant;

Andrew Kerekes, for the respondents.

Solicitors of Record:

Attorney General of Ontario for the appellant;

Kerekes, Collins, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondents.

This appeal was heard on October 14, 1988, before Dickson, C.J.C., McIntyre, Lamer, Wilson, La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé and Sopinka, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision of the court was delivered in both official languages on January 26, 1989, including the following opinions:

Dickson, C.J.C., McIntyre, Lamer, Wilson, La Forest and Sopinka, JJ. - see paragraphs 1 to 3;

L'Heureux-Dubé, J., dissenting - see paragraphs 4 to 92.