R. v. Durette et al., (1994) 163 N.R. 321 (SCC)

• Judge: Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Major, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: March 17, 1994
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1994), 163 N.R. 321 (SCC);163 NR 321;28 CR (4th) 1;1994 CanLII 123 (SCC);88 CCC (3d) 1;[1994] 1 SCR 469;70 OAC 1;[1994] SCJ No 22 (QL)

R. v. Durette (1994), 163 N.R. 321 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Leonard Farinacci, Yves Lépine and Kenneth Jeffreys (appellants) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent)

(23059, 23026 and 23061)

Indexed As: R. v. Durette et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka,

Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Major, JJ.

March 17, 1994.

Summary:

Durette, Farinacci and Lépine were jointly charged with 10 others with conspiracy to traffic in methamphetamine. Jeffreys and eight others were charged with conspiracy to traffic in cocaine. The four named accused were all convicted following a jury trial. Durette and Farinacci were sentenced to nine years' imprisonment. Lépine was sentenced to five years' imprisonment and Jeffreys was sentenced to four years' imprisonment. The four accused appealed against conviction and sentences. Durette withdrew his conviction appeal. Jeffreys abandoned his sentence appeal. The accused claimed denial of their right to be tried within a reasonable time (Charter, s. 11(b)) and challenged the validi­ty of the wiretap authorizations and the admissibility and use of the taped recordings.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, Doherty, J.A., dissenting, in a judgment reported 54 O.A.C. 81, dismissed the conviction and sentence appeals. Three of the accused appealed solely on the ground of the ad­missibility of the wiretap evidence. The issue was "did the Court of Appeal for Ontario err in law in concluding that the trial judge's editing of the affidavits in support of the wiretap authorizations did not prevent a proper and full inquiry into the validity of the authorizations, thereby depriving the appellants of the right to make full answer and defence?".

The Supreme Court of Canada, L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier and McLachlin, JJ., dissenting, allowed the appeals, set aside the convictions and ordered a new trial. The trial judge erred in editing the affidavits in a way that denied the accused the right to make full answer and defence. The error could not be cured by applying s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code.

Civil Rights - Topic 3133

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal proceedings - Right of accused to make full answer and defence - [See first and fourth Criminal Law - Topic 5275 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 128

Rights of accused - Right to make full answer and defence - [See first and fourth Criminal Law - Topic 5275 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5045

Appeals - Indictable offences - Dismissal of appeal if error resulted in no miscarriage of justice - Miscarriage of justice - What constitutes - [See first Criminal Law - Topic 5275 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5275

Evidence - Witnesses - Interception of private communications - Application for - Confidentiality of supporting material - Editing of - A trial judge editing affidavits in support of wiretap authorizations edited out material that did not tend to identify informers and did not relate to any other factors justifying nondisclosure - The trial judge erred in deleting information obtained from informers and others and material characterized as "commentary", "summary" or "opinion" - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the principle that editing was to be kept to a minimum was not respected - The accused's right to make full answer and defence was pre­judiced, denying them the ability to fully inquire into the validity of the authori­zations - The Crown failed to show that no prejudice resulted - The court declined to invoke s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code to dismiss the conviction appeals, because the wiretap evidence was a large part of the case against the accused, they were not able to fully challenge it and the verdicts would not necessarily have been the same had the accused successfully challenged even one of the wiretap au­thorizations - See paragraphs 52 to 59.

Criminal Law - Topic 5275

Evidence - Witnesses - Interception of private communications - Application for - Confidentiality of supporting material - Editing of - The accused sought disclosure of affidavits in support of wiretap authori­zations - The trial judge carried out most of the editing before receiving any infor­mation from the Crown as to what material was confidential - The trial judge gave the accused little information about the nature of the proposed deletions, other than to say the deletions were justified on the ap­propriate factors - The Crown did have some input in the editing process - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "it is difficult to determine whether or not the procedure adopted by the trial judge fell so far short of the standard set in Garofoli as to amount to an error of law" - The court found it unnecessary to decide the issue - See paragraphs 48 to 50.

Criminal Law - Topic 5275

Evidence - Witnesses - Interception of private communications - Application for - Confidentiality of supporting material - Editing of - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the interests of law enforcement were adequately served if a judge considered the following factors when editing a wiretap affidavit "(a) whether the identities of confidential police informants, and consequently their lives and safety, may be compromised, bearing in mind that such disclosure may occur as much by reference to the nature of the information supplied by the confidential source as by the publication of his or her name; (b) whether the nature and extent of ongoing law enforcement investigations would thereby be compromised; (c) whether disclosure would reveal particular intelligence-gathering techniques thereby endangering those engaged therein and prejudicing future investigation of similar offences and the public interest in law enforcement and crime detection; and (d) whether disclosure would prejudice the interests of innocent persons." - See para­graph 40.

Criminal Law - Topic 5275

Evidence - Witnesses - Interception of private communications - Application for - Confidentiality of supporting material - Editing of - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that an accused's right to make full answer and defence required access to the sealed packet to challenge the admissibility of wiretap evidence by at­tacking the validity of the authorization - The court stated that "editing is to be kept to a minimum" and "the need for editing should not be presumed" - Nondisclosure was justified where disclosure would pre­judice the interests of informants, innocent persons or law enforcement authorities and such prejudice outweighed the accused's interests - If the information ceased to be confidential, then nondisclosure was no longer justified - The court stated that an editing judge was not to delete "infor­mation obtained from informants and others" or information characterized as "commentary", "summary" or "opinion" - See paragraphs 39 to 53.

Criminal Law - Topic 5275

Evidence - Witnesses - Interception of private communications - Application for - Confidentiality of supporting material - Editing of - The Supreme Court of Canada set out the appropriate procedure to be followed in disclosing the contents of wiretap affidavits to an accused - See paragraph 42.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Parmar (1987), 34 C.C.C.(3d) 260 (Ont. H.C.), appld. [para. 1].

R. v. Garofoli, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1421; 116 N.R. 241; 43 O.A.C. 1; 36 Q.A.C. 161; 60 C.C.C.(3d) 161; 80 C.R.(3d) 317; 50 C.R.R. 206, appld. [para. 1].

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, refd to. [para. 1].

R. v. Wilson, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 594; 51 N.R. 321; 26 Man.R.(2d) 194; 9 C.C.C.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 6].

Dersch v. Canada (Attorney General) - see R. v. Dersch et al.

R. v. Dersch et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1505; 116 N.R. 340; 43 O.A.C. 256; 36 Q.A.C. 258; 60 C.C.C.(3d) 132, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Rowbotham et al. (1988), 25 O.A.C. 321; 41 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Egger (J.H.), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 451; 153 N.R. 272; 141 A.R. 81, refd to. [para. 45].

Franks v. Delaware (1978), 438 U.S. 154 (U.S.S.C.), refd to. [para. 77].

R. v. Dersch (1987), 36 C.C.C.(3d) 435 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 114].

R. v. Playford (1987), 24 O.A.C. 161; 40 C.C.C.(3d) 142 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 114].

R. v. Lachance (1988), 27 O.A.C. 45 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 114].

R. v. Garofoli (1988), 27 O.A.C. 1; 41 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 64 C.R.(3d) 193 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 114].

MacIntyre v. Nova Scotia (Attorney), Grainger and Canada (Attorney General) et al., [1982] 1 S.C.R. 175; 40 N.R. 181; 49 N.S.R.(2d) 609; 96 A.P.R. 609; 132 D.L.R.(3d) 385; 65 C.C.C.(2d) 129, refd to. [para. 114].

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. 114].

R. v. Zito, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1520; 116 N.R. 357; 43 O.A.C. 273; 36 Q.A.C. 275, refd to. [para. 114].

Poje v. British Columbia (Attorney Gen­eral) - see Canadian Transport (U.K.) Ltd. v. Alsbury.

Canadian Transport (U.K.) Ltd. v. Alsbury, [1953] 1 S.C.R. 516, affing. [1953] 1 D.L.R. 385 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 116].

Maynard v. Maynard, [1951] S.C.R. 346, refd to. [para. 116].

Badar Bee v. Habib Merican Noordin, [1909] A.C. 615 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 116].

Gibson v. Le Temps Publishing Co. (1903), 6 O.L.R. 690 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 116].

R. v. Welsh (No. 6) (1977), 32 C.C.C.(2d) 363 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 119].

R. v. Meltzer, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1764; 96 N.R. 391; 49 C.C.C.(3d) 453; 70 C.R.(3d) 383, refd to. [para. 120].

Royal Commission Inquiry into the Ac­tivities of Royal American Shows Inc. (No. 3), Re (1978), 40 C.C.C.(2d) 212 (Alta. T.D.), refd to. [para. 121].

R. v. Miller (1975), 23 C.C.C.(2d) 257 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 121].

R. v. Cheng (1976), 33 C.C.C.(2d) 441 (B.C. Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 121].

R. v. Li (No. 1), [1976] 6 W.W.R. 128 (B.C. Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 121].

R. v. Haslam (1976), 12 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 35; 25 A.P.R. 35; 3 C.R.(3d) 248 (Nfld. Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 121].

Stewart and R., Re (1976), 30 C.C.C.(2d) 391 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 122].

R. v. Kozak (1976), 32 C.C.C.(2d) 235 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 123].

R. v. Collos (1977), 37 C.C.C.(2d) 405 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 123].

R. v. Gill (1980), 18 C.R.(3d) 390 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 123].

R. v. Cloutier, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 709; 28 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 126].

McKercher v. Vancouver-Iowa Shingle Co., [1929] 4 D.L.R. 231 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 126].

Wright v. Doe d. Tatham (1837), 7 Ad. & El. 313; 112 E.R. 488 (Ex. Ch.), refd to. [para. 126].

R. v. Donnelly (1976), 29 C.C.C.(2d) 58 (Alta. T.D.), refd to. [para. 126].

R. v. Finlay and Grellette (1985), 11 O.A.C. 279; 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. 128].

R. v. Ross (1985), 26 C.C.C.(3d) 264 (Ont. Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 132].

R. v. Wood (1986), 26 C.C.C.(3d) 77 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 132].

R. v. Martel (J.J.P.A.) (1986), 58 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 260; 174 A.P.R. 260; 27 C.C.C.(3d) 508 (P.E.I.C.A.), refd to. [para. 132].

R. v. Birt and Anderson (1986), 74 A.R. 379; 31 C.C.C.(3d) 176 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 132].

R. v. Madsen (1986), 31 C.C.C.(3d) 249 (N.W.T.S.C.), refd to. [para. 132].

R. v. Graves, Purcell and Newman (1987), 77 N.S.R.(2d) 71; 191 A.P.R. 71; 31 C.C.C.(3d) 552 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 132].

R. v. Pascoe and Hankey et al. (1987), 57 Sask.R. 54; 32 C.C.C.(3d) 61 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 132].

R. v. Martin (1986), 32 C.C.C.(3d) 257 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 132].

R. v. Rowbotham (1984), 42 C.R.(3d) 164 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 133].

R. v. Dersch (1986), 32 C.C.C.(3d) 346 (B.C.S.C.), affd. (1987), 36 C.C.C.(3d) 435 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 133].

R. v. Stensrud and Smith (G.W.) (1987), 56 Sask.R. 44 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 133].

R. v. Zito (1988), 17 Q.A.C. 35; 42 C.C.C.(3d) 565 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 136].

Bisaillon v. Keable et al., [1983] 2 S.C.R. 60; 51 N.R. 81; 7 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 2 D.L.R.(4th) 193; 37 C.R.(3d) 289; 4 Admin. L.R. 205, refd to. [para. 142].

Roviaro v. United States (1957), 353 U.S. 53 (U.S.S.C.), refd to. [para. 144].

McCray v. Illinois (1967), 386 U.S. 300 (U.S.S.C.), refd to. [para. 146].

Colorado v. Nunez (1984), 465 U.S. 324, refd to. [para. 147].

United States v. Cantor (1972), 470 F.2d 890 (3rd Circ.), refd to. [para. 148].

United States v. D'Alfonso (1973), 357 F.Supp. 1341 (E.D. Pa.), refd to. [para. 148].

People v. Sturgis (1973), 352 N.Y.S.2d 942 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 148].

United States v. Garramone (1974), 374 F.Supp. 256 (E.D. Pa.), refd to. [para. 148].

United States v. Danovaro (1989), 877 F.2d 583 (7th Circ.), refd to. [para. 148].

New Jersey (State) v. Garcia (1993), 618 A.2d 326 (N.J.S.C.), refd to. [para. 149].

Canada (Solicitor General) et al. v. Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Confi­dentiality of Health Records in Ontario et al., [1981] 2 S.C.R. 494; 38 N.R. 588, refd to. [para. 168].

Solicitor General of Canada - see Canada (Solicitor General).

R. v. Hunter (1987), 19 O.A.C. 131; 34 C.C.C.(3d) 14 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 170].

R. v. Scott, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 979; 116 N.R. 361; 43 O.A.C. 277; 61 C.C.C.(3d) 300, refd to. [para. 171].

Rathwell v. Rathwell, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 436; 19 N.R. 91; [1978] 2 W.W.R. 101; 83 D.L.R.(3d) 289; 1 E.T.R. 307; 1 R.F.L.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 179].

R. v. Grant (D.), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 223; 159 N.R. 161; 35 B.C.A.C. 1; 57 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 181].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 7, sect. 11(d) [para. 110].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 178.14(1)(a)(ii) [para. 63].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 187 [paras. 33, 34, 139]; sect. 686(1)(b)(iii) [para. 59]; sect. 691(1)(a) [para. 18].

Criminal Code, Crown Liability and Pro­ceedings Act and Radiocommunication Act, An Act to Amend, S.C. 1993, c. 40, sect. 7 [paras. 34, 140].

Criminal Law Amendment Act, R.S.C. 1985 (1st Supp.), c. 27, generally [para. 139].

Protection of Privacy Act, S.C. 1973-74, c. 50, sect. 2 [para. 63].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Bellemare, Daniel A., L'écoute élec­tronique au Canada (1981), pp. 352 [para. 123]; 353 [paras. 123, 124]; 354 to 361 [para. 123].

Cohen, Stanley A., Invasion of Privacy (1983), pp. 156 to 158 [para. 123].

Cross on Evidence (7th Ed. 1991), p. 51 et seq. [para. 126].

Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Ed. 1976), vol. 17, p. 7, para. 5 [para. 126].

LaFave, Wayne R., Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment (2nd Ed. 1993), vol. 1, pp. 697 to 711 [para. 150].

Watt, David J., The Law of Electronic Surveillance in Canada (1979), pp. 248 to 255 [para. 123].

Wigmore, John Henry, A Treatise on the Anglo-American System of Evidence in Trials at Common Law (3rd Ed. 1940), vol. 1, p. 289, § 9 [para. 126].

Wigmore on Evidence (McNaughton Rev. 1961), vol. 8, § 2374 [para. 150].

Counsel:

Frank Addario, for the appellant, Farinacci;

David E. Harris, for the appellant, Lépine;

James Lockyer, for the appellant, Jeffreys;

Robert W. Hubbard and Scott K. Fenton, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Ruby & Edwardh, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant, Farinacci;

Carter & Minden, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant, Lépine;

Pinkofsky, Lockyer, Kwinter, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant, Jeffreys;

John C. Tait, Q.C., Deputy Attorney Gen­eral of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

These appeals were heard on November 10, 1993, before Lamer, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Major, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On March 17, 1994, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official languages and the following opinions were filed:

Sopinka, J. (Lamer, C.J.C., Cory and Major, JJ., concurring) - see para­graphs 1 to 62;

L'Heureux-Dubé, J., dissenting (Gonthier and McLachlin, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 63 to 186.