R. v. Ferguson (L.), (2000) 130 O.A.C. 253 (CA)

• Judge: Abella, Laskin and Feldman, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: May 12, 1999
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (2000), 130 O.A.C. 253 (CA)

R. v. Ferguson (L.) (2000), 130 O.A.C. 253 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] O.A.C. TBEd. FE.047

Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) v. Lorie Ferguson (appellant)

(C30011)

Indexed As: R. v. Ferguson (L.)

Ontario Court of Appeal

Abella, Laskin and Feldman, JJ.A.

February 14, 2000.

Summary:

The accused was found guilty by a jury of second degree murder, following the shoot­ing death of her spouse. The accused ap­pealed, arguing that the trial judge's decision to grant the jury's request, during delibera­tions, for a copy of the Crown's closing submissions only, was prejudicial and unfair to the accused.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, Laskin, J.A., dissenting, allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and ordered a new trial. The court agreed that the accused was prejudiced by the trial judge's decision to allow the jury to review a copy of only the Crown's closing statement. The judge's decision affected the fairness of the trial.

Criminal Law - Topic 4345

Procedure - Jury - Evidence - Jury request to review evidence or argument - The ac­cused was found guilty by a jury of second degree murder, following the shooting death of her spouse - The accused ap­pealed, arguing that the trial judge's deci­sion to grant the jury's request, during deliberations, for a copy of the Crown's closing submissions only, was prejudicial and unfair to the accused - Counsel did not object to the jury's request - The Ontario Court of Appeal, allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and ordered a new trial - The court agreed that the accused was prejudiced by the trial judge's decision to allow the jury to re­view a copy of only the Crown's closing statement - The judge's decision affected the fairness of the trial - The jury should have been given a copy of defence coun­sel's address too.

Criminal Law - Topic 4345

Procedure - Jury - Evidence - Jury request to review evidence or argument - [See Crim­inal Law - Topic 4393 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4393

Procedure - Jury charge - Failure by coun­sel to object - Effect of - The accused was found guilty by a jury of second degree murder, following the shooting death of her spouse - During deliberations, the judge, without objection by counsel, grant­ed the jury's request for a copy of the Crown's closing address - The accused appealed, arguing that the trial judge erred in giving the jury only the Crown's closing address - An issue arose respecting the effect of counsel's failure to object - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that a failure to object, while a factor to consider, was not a bar to consideration of an issue on appeal - Nor did the failure to object re­lieve a trial judge from overall responsi­bility for ensuring a fair trial - In this case, the failure to object was not a tactical decision, rather it was more in the nature of a lapse of counsel and could not insulate from review a significant decision by the trial judge affecting the fairness of the trial - See paragraphs 38 to 40.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Cullen, [1949] O.R. 10 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Lomage (1991), 44 O.A.C. 131; 2 O.R.(3d) 621 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. G.D.D., [1998] O.A.C. Uned. 498 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Ramos (E.) (1997), 101 O.A.C. 211 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Corriveau (1985), 8 O.A.C. 18; 19 C.C.C.(3d) 238 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 38, 89, footnote 16].

R. v. Mullins-Johnson (W.) (1996), 96 O.A.C. 212; 31 O.R.(3d) 660 (C.A.), affd. [1998] 1 S.C.R. 977; 226 N.R. 365; 110 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. J.F.A. (1993), 64 O.A.C. 359; 82 C.C.C.(3d) 295 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Jacquard (C.O.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 314; 207 N.R. 246; 157 N.S.R.(2d) 161; 462 A.P.R. 161; 113 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Arcangioli (G.), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 129; 162 N.R. 280; 69 O.A.C. 26; 87 C.C.C.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Rose (J.), [1998] 3 S.C.R. 262; 232 N.R. 83; 115 O.A.C. 201; 129 C.C.C.(3d) 449, refd to. [paras. 41, 90, footnote 17].

R. v. Ménard (S.), [1998] 2 S.C.R. 109; 228 N.R. 100; 111 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [paras. 46, 83, footnote 11].

R. v. Keegstra (J.) (1994), 157 A.R. 1; 77 W.A.C. 1; 92 C.C.C.(3d) 505 (C.A.), affd. [1996] 1 S.C.R. 458; 197 N.R. 26; 184 A.R. 217; 122 W.A.C. 217, refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Olbey, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1008; 30 N.R. 152, refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Ostrowski and Correia, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 82; 197 N.R. 230; 70 Man.R.(2d) 122, refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Daley (1992), 57 O.A.C. 70 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Thomas (1987), 20 B.C.L.R.(2d) 241 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. D.D. (1998), 113 O.A.C. 179; 129 C.C.C.(3d) 506 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 46].

Cathro v. R., [1956] S.C.R. 101, refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Hajian; R. v. Miller (1998), 124 C.C.C.(3d) 440 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [paras. 48, 85, footnote 14].

R. v. Khela (S.S.) and Dhillon (K.S.) (1991), 41 Q.A.C. 101; 68 C.C.C.(3d) 81 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. R.A.C. (1990), 57 C.C.C.(3d) 522 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [paras. 48, 84, foot­note 12].

R. v. Yebes, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 168; 78 N.R. 351; 36 C.C.C.(3d) 417; 59 C.R.(3d) 108; 17 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1; [1987] 6 W.W.R. 97; 43 D.L.R.(4th) 424, refd to. [para. 60, footnote 1].

R. v. Mohan, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 9; 166 N.R. 245; 71 O.A.C. 241; 89 C.C.C.(3d) 402; 114 D.L.R.(4th) 419; 29 C.R.(4th) 243, refd to. [para. 66, footnote 2].

R. v. Nielson and Stolar (1984), 30 Man.R.(2d) 81; 16 C.C.C.(3d) 39 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 66, footnote 3].

R. v. Legere (A.J.) (1994), 156 N.B.R.(2d) 321; 401 A.P.R. 321; 95 C.C.C.(3d) 139 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 66, footnote 3].

R. v. Jackson (1980), 57 C.C.C.(2d) 154 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 69, footnote 4].

R. v. Bihun, [1965] 4 C.C.C. 45 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 69, footnote 4].

R. v. Campbell (1978), 17 O.R.(2d) 673 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 71, footnote 5].

R. v. McIntosh (O.) and McCarthy (P.) (1997), 107 O.A.C. 210; 35 O.R.(3d) 97 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 72, footnote 6].

R. v. D.W., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742; 122 N.R. 277; 46 O.A.C. 352; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 397; 3 C.R.(4th) 302, refd to. [para. 76, foot­note 8].

R. v. W.D.S., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 521; 171 N.R. 360; 157 A.R. 321; 77 W.A.C. 321; 93 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 82, foot­note 9].

R. v. Cathro, [1956] S.C.R. 101, refd to. [para. 83, footnote 10].

R. v. Smith, Sauve and George (1975), 25 C.C.C.(2d) 270 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 84, footnote 12].

R. v. Khela (S.S.) and Dhillon (K.S.) (1991), 41 Q.A.C. 101; 68 C.C.C.(3d) 81 (C.A.), revd. [1995] 4 S.C.R. 201; 188 N.R. 355, refd to. [para. 85, footnote 13].

R. v. Tremblay, [1997] A.Q. No. 2905 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 85, footnote 14].

R. v. J.A. (1996), 95 O.A.C. 383; 112 C.C.C.(3d) 528 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 87, footnote 15].

R. v. Callaghan (1991), 51 O.A.C. 34; 9 C.R.(4th) 264 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 90, footnote 18].

R. v. Pelletier (1986), 29 C.C.C.(3d) 533 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 90, footnote 18].

R. v. Corbett, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 670; 85 N.R. 81; 41 C.C.C.(3d) 385, refd to. [para. 95, footnote 19].

Counsel:

Michelle K. Fuerst, for the appellant;

M. David Lepofsky and Greg Tweney, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on May 12, 1999, before Abella, Laskin and Feldman, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The judgment of the court was released on February 14, 2000, including the following opinions:

Abella, J.A. (Feldman, J.A., con­curring) - see paragraphs 1 to 55;

Laskin, J.A., dissenting - see paragraphs 56 to 98.