R. v. Erven, (1978) 25 N.R. 49 (SCC)

• Judge: Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Ritchie, Spence, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz, Estey and Pratte, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: December 21, 1978
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1978), 25 N.R. 49 (SCC);[1979] 1 SCR 521;1978 CanLII 172 (SCC)

R. v. Erven (1978), 25 N.R. 49 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Erven

Indexed As: R. v. Erven

Supreme Court of Canada

Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Ritchie, Spence, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz, Estey and Pratte, JJ.

December 21, 1978.

Summary:

This case arose out of a charge against the accused of possession of over 1700 pounds of hashish for the purpose of trafficking contrary to s. 4(2) of the Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. N-1. At trial the Nova Scotia County Court admitted statements by the accused into evidence without holding a voir dire on the ground that the statements were obviously voluntary and no voir dire was necessary. The accused was convicted and sentenced to five years imprisonment. The accused appealed from conviction and sentence. In a judgment reported 21 N.S.R.(2d) 653; 28 A.P.R. 653, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence. The accused appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial. The Supreme Court of Canada held that the trial judge erred in failing to hold a voir dire on the admissibility of the accused's statements. The Supreme Court of Canada held that the holding of a voir dire was mandatory in the absence of an express waiver of a voir dire by the accused.

Criminal Law - Topic 5045

Appeals - Indictable offences - Dismissal of appeal if error resulted in no miscarriage of justice - What constitutes a miscarriage of justice - Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, s. 613(1)(b)(iii) - The Supreme Court of Canada allowed an appeal under s. 613(1)(b)(iii), and ordered a new trial, where the failure of the trial judge to hold a voir dire respecting the admissibility of statements by the accused might have caused a miscarriage of justice - See paragraphs 44 and 57.

Criminal Law - Topic 5331

Evidence - Confessions and voluntary statements - Voluntary statements by an accused not subject to the rules regarding confessions - After the arrest and imprisonment of the accused for possession of a narcotic for the purpose of trafficking the police brought clothing from the cottage where the narcotic was found and the accused accepted some of the clothing to wear, raising the inference that the clothing belonged to him - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal held that the statement or the action of the accused in accepting the clothing was not subject to the rule concerning the admissibility of incriminating statements and that no voir dire need be held on its admissibility - The Supreme Court of Canada refused to disturb the decision of the Court of Appeal - See paragraphs 44 and 57.

Criminal Law - Topic 5332

Evidence - Confessions and voluntary statements - Voir dire - Necessity and purpose of - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the holding of a voir dire on the admissibility of statements by an accused was mandatory in the absence of an express waiver of a voir dire by the accused - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the purpose and reasons for the necessity of a voir dire - See paragraphs 1 to 36 and 46 to 59.

Criminal Law - Topic 5334

Evidence - Confessions and voluntary statements - Voir dire - Procedure - The Supreme Court of Canada set out the procedure for proof by the Crown that a statement should be admitted as voluntary - See paragraph 6 - The Supreme Court of Canada set out the rights of the accused on a voir dire - See paragraphs 19 to 20.

Evidence - Topic 1721

Hearsay rule exceptions - Res gestae - Utterances as part of issue or event - Accused's statements - The Supreme Court of Canada held that a statement made by the accused as part of the res gestae must still be proved to be voluntary before it is admissible - See paragraph 23.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Piché, [1971] S.C.R. 23, appld. [para. 70].

Ibrahim v. R., [1914] A.C. 599 (P.C.), appld. [paras. 3, 50].

Prosko v. R. (1922), 63 S.C.R. 226, refd to. [para. 3].

Boudreau v. R., [1949] S.C.R. 262, appld. [para. 67].

Commissioners of Customs and Excise v. Harz, [1967] 2 W.L.R. 297, appld. [para. 4].

R. v. Boulet (1977), 15 N.R. 541; [1978] 1 S.C.R. 332, appld. [para. 5].

R. v. Powell (1976), 9 N.R. 361; [1977] 1 S.C.R. 362, appld. [para. 5].

R. v. Gauthier (1975), 10 N.R. 373; [1977] 1 S.C.R. 441, appld. [paras. 7, 70].

R. v. Spencer (1973), 6 N.S.R.(2d) 555; 16 C.C.C.(2d) 29, disapprvd. [paras. 9, 14].

R. v. Rushton (1974), 20 C.C.C.(2d) 297 (Ont. C.A.), disapprvd. [para. 11].

R. v. Sweezey (1974), 20 C.C.C.(2d) 400 (Ont. C.A.), disapprvd. [para. 11].

R. v. Armstrong, [1970] 1 C.C.C. 136; 2 N.S.R.(2d) 204 (N.S.C.A.), leave to appeal denied 4 N.S.R.(2d) 248 (S.C.C.), disapprvd. [para. 11].

R. v. Toulany (1973), 6 N.S.R.(2d) 566; 16 C.C.C.(2d) 208 (N.S.C.A.), disapprvd. [para. 14].

Thiffault v. R., [1933] S.C.R. 509, appld. [para. 16].

R. v. Baschuk (1931), 56 C.C.C. 208, folld. [para. 17].

R. v. Fitton, [1956] S.C.R. 958, consd. [para. 22].

R. v. Dietrich, [1970] O.R. 725 (O.C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1970] S.C.R. xi, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. John, [1971] S.C.R. 781, dist. [para. 34].

R. v. Mayer (1976), 16 N.S.R.(2d) 404; 16 A.P.R. 404, refd to. [para. 52].

D.P.P. v. Ping Lin, [1976] A.C. 574, appld. [para. 52].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 613(1)(b)(iii) [paras. 44, 57].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Bushnell, S.I., Comment on R. v. Powell (1976), 18 Crim. L.Q. 404 [para. 32].

Developments In the Law; Confessions (1966), 70 Harv. L. Rev. 935, 1103 [para. 22].

Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Ed.), vol. 11, para. 410 [para. 4].

Kaufman, The Admissibility of Confessions (2nd Ed.), pp. 51, 52 [para. 21].

Ratushny, Comment on R. v. Powell (1978), 20 Crim. L.Q., 312 [para. 33].

Counsel:

David F. Walker, Q.C., for the appellant;

E.G. Ewaschuk and R. Fainstein, for the respondent.

This case was heard on March 9 and 10, 1978, at Ottawa, Ontario, before LASKIN, C.J.C., MARTLAND, RITCHIE, SPENCE, PIGEON, DICKSON, BEETZ, ESTEY and PRATTE, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On December 21, 1978 the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered and the following opinions were filed:

DICKSON, J. - see paragraphs 1 to 45;

PRATTE, J. - see paragraphs 46 to 59;

RITCHIE, J., dissenting - see paragraphs 60 to 78.

LASKIN, C.J.C., SPENCE and ESTEY, JJ., concurred with DICKSON, J.

BEETZ, J., concurred with PRATTE, J.

MARTLAND and PIGEON, JJ., concurred with RITCHIE, J.