R. v. Gravesande (D.), 2015 ONCA 774
| Judge | Hoy, A.C.J.O., Weiler and Pardu, JJ.A. |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Ontario) |
| Case Date | October 08, 2015 |
| Jurisdiction | Ontario |
| Citations | 2015 ONCA 774;(2015), 342 O.A.C. 182 (CA) |
R. v. Gravesande (D.) (2015), 342 O.A.C. 182 (CA)
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite: [2015] O.A.C. TBEd. NO.022
Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Deryk Gravesande (appellant)
(C58782; 2015 ONCA 774)
Indexed As: R. v. Gravesande (D.)
Ontario Court of Appeal
Hoy, A.C.J.O., Weiler and Pardu, JJ.A.
November 13, 2015.
Summary:
The accused, a defence lawyer, was convicted of smuggling drugs into the Toronto Jail for a former client in the course of a professional visit. The accused appealed.
The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction and ordered a new trial. The trial judge erred in applying a stricter level of scrutiny to the accused's evidence than to the prosecution witnesses. The judge also erred in concluding that certain third-party records requested by the accused were not likely relevant to an issue in the trial and, on that basis, refusing to review documents that had already been produced.
Criminal Law - Topic 4300
Procedure - Trial judge - Duties and functions of - Respecting credibility of witnesses (incl. accused) - [See both Criminal Law - Topic 4377 ].
Criminal Law - Topic 4377
Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Directions regarding credibility of witnesses - The Ontario Court of Appeal stated that "... it is an error of law for a trial judge to apply a higher or stricter level of scrutiny to the evidence of the defence than to the evidence of the Crown ..." - See paragraph 18.
Criminal Law - Topic 4377
Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Directions regarding credibility of witnesses - The accused, a defence lawyer, was convicted of smuggling drugs into the Toronto Jail for a former client in the course of a professional visit - The drugs were found in a sock hidden in the former client's underwear - The accused denied he was the one who smuggled in the drugs - He appealed his conviction - The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge erred in applying a stricter level of scrutiny to the accused's evidence than to the prosecution witnesses - The trial judge's reasons demonstrated that he rejected the accused's testimony for speculative reasons, while failing to apply similar scrutiny to the evidence of the Crown - See paragraphs 18 to 44.
Criminal Law - Topic 4379
Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Directions re evidence of character or credibility of accused - [See both Criminal Law - Topic 4377 ].
Criminal Law - Topic 5215
Evidence and witnesses - Burden of proof - General - [See both Criminal Law - Topic 4377 ].
Criminal Law - Topic 5372
Evidence and witnesses - Documents and reports - Documents in possession of third parties - The accused was convicted of smuggling drugs into a jail - He appealed, arguing that the trial judge erred in refusing to inspect third party records to assess whether they should be produced at trial - The accused had sought access to the documents in order to assist him in testing the reliability of the Crown's circumstantial evidence and to develop evidence of pervasive drug smuggling at the jail - The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal - The trial judge's failure to conclude that the records were likely relevant was clearly wrong - That error was sufficient to require a new trial - See paragraphs 45 to 58.
Criminal Law - Topic 5404
Evidence and witnesses - Witnesses - Credibility - [See both Criminal Law - Topic 4377 ].
Cases Noticed:
R. v. Owen (W.) (2001), 150 O.A.C. 378 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 62].
R. v. H.C. (2009), 244 O.A.C. 288; 241 C.C.C.(3d) 45; 2009 ONCA 56, refd to. [para. 18].
R. v. S.P. (2013), 313 O.A.C. 352; 2013 ONCA 787, refd to. [para. 18].
R. v. Aird (A.) (2013), 307 O.A.C. 183; 2013 ONCA 447, refd to. [para. 18].
R. v. J.H., [2005] O.A.C. Uned. 3; 192 C.C.C.(3d) 480 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].
R. v. Rhayel (H.) (2015), 334 O.A.C. 181; 2015 ONCA 377, refd to. [para. 19].
R. v. Polashek (P.K.) (1999), 118 O.A.C. 312; 134 C.C.C.(3d) 187 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].
R. v. T.T. (2009), 68 C.R.(6th) 1; 2009 ONCA 613, refd to. [para. 43].
R. v. O'Connor (H.P.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 411; 191 N.R. 1; 68 B.C.A.C. 1; 112 W.A.C. 1; 130 D.L.R.(4th) 235, refd to. [para. 50].
R. v. McNeil (L.), [2009] 1 S.C.R. 66; 383 N.R. 1; 246 O.A.C. 154; 2009 SCC 3, refd to. [para. 51].
Counsel:
Marie Henein, Scott Hutchison and Matthew Gourlay, for the appellant;
Luc Boucher and Jim Marshall, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard on October 8, 2015, before Hoy, A.C.J.O., Weiler and Pardu, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The following decision was delivered for the court by Pardu, J.A., on November 13, 2015.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Mehari, 2020 SKCA 37
...of a trial judge cannot become a vehicle to sidestep the standard of review applicable in these latter two circumstances: R v Gravesande, 2015 ONCA 774 at para 18, 330 CCC (3d) 497 [Gravesande]; R v George, 2016 ONCA 464 at para 35, 349 OAC 347; R v Radcliffe, 2017 ONCA 176 at paras 23–26, ......
-
Figg v. R,
...NSCA 64 at paras. 40-45; R. v. Wanihadie, 2019 ABCA 402 at paras. 34-43; R. v. Kiss, 2018 ONCA 184 at paras. 82-83; R. v. Gravesande, 2015 ONCA 774 at paras. 18-19, 43. [para. [41] &#......
-
R v DEZ, 2018 ABCA 99
...statement as being a material inconsistency was not an example of applying a different level of scrutiny as described in R v Gravesande, 2015 ONCA 774 at para 18, 330 CCC 3d 497. Speaking generally, mere failure to address all points of argument is not mis-alignment of scrutiny in our view:......
-
R. v. T.G., 2019 ONCJ 665
...evidence: R. v. Bartholomew, 2019 ONCA 377, at paras. 30-31 [Bartholomew]; R. v. Radcliffe, 2017 ONCA 176; R. v. Gravesande, 2015 ONCA 774. [129] Finally, I have explained that I do not believe the defendant’s denial of sexual touching or sexual intent. While disbelief on these core conside......
-
R v Mehari, 2020 SKCA 37
...of a trial judge cannot become a vehicle to sidestep the standard of review applicable in these latter two circumstances: R v Gravesande, 2015 ONCA 774 at para 18, 330 CCC (3d) 497 [Gravesande]; R v George, 2016 ONCA 464 at para 35, 349 OAC 347; R v Radcliffe, 2017 ONCA 176 at paras 23–26, ......
-
Figg v. R, 2022 NBCA 30
...NSCA 64 at paras. 40-45; R. v. Wanihadie, 2019 ABCA 402 at paras. 34-43; R. v. Kiss, 2018 ONCA 184 at paras. 82-83; R. v. Gravesande, 2015 ONCA 774 at paras. 18-19, 43. [para. [41] &#......
-
R v DEZ, 2018 ABCA 99
...statement as being a material inconsistency was not an example of applying a different level of scrutiny as described in R v Gravesande, 2015 ONCA 774 at para 18, 330 CCC 3d 497. Speaking generally, mere failure to address all points of argument is not mis-alignment of scrutiny in our view:......
-
R. v. T.G., 2019 ONCJ 665
...evidence: R. v. Bartholomew, 2019 ONCA 377, at paras. 30-31 [Bartholomew]; R. v. Radcliffe, 2017 ONCA 176; R. v. Gravesande, 2015 ONCA 774. [129] Finally, I have explained that I do not believe the defendant’s denial of sexual touching or sexual intent. While disbelief on these core conside......
-
Court Of Appeal Summaries (Nov 9-13, 2015)
...Sheridan Roger Pinnock and Amy Alyea, for the respondent Keywords: Criminal Law, Murder, Jury Selection, Appeal Allowed R. v. Gravesande, 2015 ONCA 774 [Hoy A.C.J.O, Weiler and Pardu JJ.A.] Counsel: Marie Henein, Scott Hutchison and Matthew Gourlay, for the appellant Luc Boucher and Jim Mar......
-
Court Of Appeal Summaries (October 13 ' October 16, 2020)
...489 (Ont. C.A.), Drouillard v. Cogeco Cable Inc., 2007 ONCA 322, R. v. Sahdev, 2017 ONCA 900, R. v. Aird, 2013 ONCA 447, R v. Gravesande, 2015 ONCA 774, R. Ibrahim, 2019 ONCA 613, Hamilton v. Open Window Bakery Ltd., 2004 SCC 9, Boucher v. Public Accountants Council for Province of Ontario ......