R. v. Hall (D.S.), (2002) 293 N.R. 239 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: October 10, 2002
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2002), 293 N.R. 239 (SCC);2002 SCC 64

R. v. Hall (D.S.) (2002), 293 N.R. 239 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Temp. Cite: [2002] N.R. TBEd. OC.001

David Scott Hall (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) and The Attorney General of Canada, the Attorney General of Quebec, the Criminal Lawyers' Association (Ontario) and the Association des avocats de la défense de Montréal (interveners)

(28223; 2002 SCC 64; 2002 CSC 64)

Indexed As: R. v. Hall (D.S.)

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ.

October 10, 2002.

Summary:

An accused was charged with first degree murder. He applied for bail. The bail judge held that the accused's detention was not necessary to secure his attendance in court or for the protection and safety of the public. However, the judge denied the accused bail, holding that his detention was necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice under s. 515(10)(c) of the Criminal Code. The accused sought an order of habeas corpus. He sought a declaration that s. 515(10)(c) was of no force and effect on the basis that it violated ss. 7 and 11(e) of the Charter.

The Ontario Superior Court, in a decision reported at [1999] O.T.C. 80, held that s. 515(10)(c) was constitutional. The accused appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at 136 O.A.C. 20, dismissed the appeal. The accused appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, Iacobucci, Major, Arbour and LeBel, JJ., dissenting, dismissed the appeal. However, the court severed a portion of s. 515(10)(c) as being unconstitutional.

Civil Rights - Topic 3107

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - General principles and definitions - Void for vagueness doctrine - Sections 515(10)(a) and (b) of the Crimi­nal Code provided that bail could be denied to ensure the accused's attendance in court or to protect the public's safety - Section 515(10)(c) provided that bail could be denied "on any other just cause being shown and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, where the detention is necessary in order to maintain confidence in the administration of justice ..." - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the phrase "on any other just cause being shown" conferred broad discretion and violated the presumption of innocence and s. 11(e) of the Charter, which provided that bail could be denied only for just cause - The phrase did not specify any particular basis upon which bail could be denied - It was not saved by s. 1 of the Charter and was void - The phrase "with­out limiting the generality of the fore­going" was also void - The court severed the first portion of s. 515(10)(c), holding that the balance of the section was capable of standing alone - See paragraphs 22, 23, 43 and 44.

Civil Rights - Topic 3107

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - General principles and definitions - Void for vagueness doctrine - Section 515(10)(c) of the Criminal Code provided that bail could be denied "... where the detention is necessary in order to maintain confidence in the administra­tion of justice", having regard to all the circumstances, including four specified factors (e.g., strength of the prosecution's case and gravity of the offence) - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 515(10)(c) was neither superfluous nor unjustified - It complied with s. 11(e) of the Charter, which provided that bail could be denied only for just cause - The phrase "necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice", amplified by a direction to consider four specified factors, did not result in a "standardless sweep" and was not unconstitutionally vague - Further, the phrase did not confer open-ended judicial discretion and was not overbroad - See paragraphs 24 to 41.

Civil Rights - Topic 3107

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - General principles and definitions - Void for vagueness doctrine - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "Laws are of necessity general statements that must cover a variety of situations. A degree of generality is therefore essential, and is not to be confused with vagueness, which occurs when the law is so imprecise that it does not permit legal debate about its meaning and application." - See para­graph 34.

Civil Rights - Topic 3107.2

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - General principles and definitions - Overbreadth principle - [See second Civil Rights - Topic 3107 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 3140

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Right to bail - [See first and second Civil Rights - Topic 3107 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 3622

Detention and imprisonment - Bail and interim release - Denial of bail without just cause - [See first and second Civil Rights - Topic 3107 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 4908

Presumption of innocence - General prin­ciples - Circumstances infringing presump­tion - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 3107 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law (Charter, s. 1) - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 3107 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8380.14

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Severance of portion of statute or section - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 3107 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 3304.1

Compelling appearance, detention and release - Interim release or detention of accused pending trial or appeal - Detention necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice - The accused was charged with first degree murder - Com­pelling evidence linked him to the crime - A bail judge denied the accused's applica­tion for bail - The judge found that fear prevailed in the community, the offence was horrific and inexplicable and the Crown's case against the accused was strong - Therefore, the judge held that the accused's detention was necessary in order to maintain confidence in the administra­tion of justice - The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the bail judge's decision - See paragraph 42.

Criminal Law - Topic 3304.1

Compelling appearance, detention and release - Interim release or detention of accused pending trial or appeal - Detention necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice - [See first and second Civil Rights - Topic 3107 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Pearson (E.), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 665; 144 N.R. 243; 52 Q.A.C. 1, consd. [paras. 11, 66].

R. v. Morales (M.), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 711; 144 N.R. 176; 51 Q.A.C. 161, consd. [paras. 11, 63].

R. v. Gottfriedson (1906), 10 C.C.C. 239 (B.C. Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 14].

N., Re (1945), 87 C.C.C. 377 (P.E.I.S.C.), refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335, refd to. [paras. 22, 112].

R. v. MacDougal (R.A.) (1999), 128 B.C.A.C. 281; 208 W.A.C. 281; 138 C.C.C.(3d) 38 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 25, 102].

R. v. Dakin, [1989] O.J. No. 1348 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 25, 104].

R. v. Rondeau, [1996] R.J.Q. 1155; 108 C.C.C.(3d) 474 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [paras. 25, 83].

R. v. Valente, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 673; 64 N.R. 1; 14 O.A.C. 79, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Smith, [2001] A.J. No. 501 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Coles, [1999] B.C.J. No. 3107 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society et al. (No. 2), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 606; 139 N.R. 241; 114 N.S.R.(2d) 91; 313 A.P.R. 91, refd to. [para. 34].

Winko v. Forensic Psychiatric Institute (B.C.) et al., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625; 241 N.R. 1; 124 B.C.A.C. 1; 203 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 34].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. New Brunswick (Attorney General), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 480; 203 N.R. 169; 182 N.B.R.(2d) 81; 463 A.P.R. 81, refd to. [paras. 35, 103].

R. v. Heywood (R.L.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 761; 174 N.R. 81; 50 B.C.A.C. 161; 82 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Nguyen (Y.V.) (1997), 97 B.C.A.C. 86; 157 W.A.C. 86; 119 C.C.C.(3d) 269 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 41, 105].

Schachter v. Canada et al., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 679; 139 N.R. 1, refd to. [paras. 44, 121].

R. v. Rose (1898), 18 Cox C.C. 717 (C.C.R.), refd to. [para. 55].

R. v. Phillips (1947), 32 Cr. App. R. 47 (C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].

Powers v. R. (1972), 9 C.C.C.(2d) 533 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 104].

S v. Dlamini, 1999 (4) SA 623 (C.C.), refd to. [para. 115].

R. v. Rezaie (M.) (1996), 96 O.A.C. 268; 112 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 118].

Vriend et al. v. Alberta, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493; 224 N.R. 1; 212 A.R. 237; 168 W.A.C. 237, refd to. [para. 123].

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, refd to. [para. 124].

R. v. Mills (B.J.), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 668; 248 N.R. 101; 244 A.R. 201; 209 W.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 124].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 515(10)(c) [para. 4].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canada, National Council of Welfare, Justice and the Poor (2000), pp. 28 to 50 [para. 59].

Canada, Report of the Canadian Commit­tee on Corrections, Towards Unity: Criminal Justice and Corrections (Ouimet Report) (1969), pp. 99, 108, 109 [para. 61].

Canada, Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Pro­ceedings, Issue No. 60, 2nd Sess., 35th Parl. (April 21, 1997), p. 60:30 [para. 18].

Friedland, Martin L., Detention Before Trial: A Study of Cases Tried in the Toronto Magistrates' Courts (1965), pp. 172 [para. 57]; 175 [paras. 57, 58]; 186 [para. 60].

Ontario, Report of the Commission on Systemic Racism in the Ontario Criminal Justice System (1995), pp. 113 to 116 [para. 59].

Ouimet Report - see Canada, Report of the Canadian Committee on Corrections, Towards Unity: Criminal Justice and Corrections.

Packer, Herbert L., The Limits of the Criminal Sanction (1968), pp. 214, 215 [para. 59].

Stuart, Don, Hall: The Ontario Court of Appeal Ducks Broader Issues in Uphold­ing the New Public Interest Bail Pro­vision (2000), 35 C.R.(5th) 219, p. 220 [para. 90].

Trotter, Gary T., The Law of Bail in Canada (2nd Ed. 1999), pp. 4 to 8 [para. 100]; 6 [para. 55]; 31 to 50 [para. 59]; 36 to 39 [para. 118]; 145, 146 [para. 105].

Counsel:

John Norris, for the appellant;

Eric H. Siebenmorgen, for the respondent;

Peter DeFreitas and Robert W. Hubbard, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Canada;

Jacques Blais and Julie Drolet, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Que­bec;

Louis P. Strezos, for the intervener, the Criminal Lawyers' Association (Ontario);

Christian Desrosiers and Martin Vauclair, for the intervener, the Association des avocats de la défense de Montréal.

Solicitors of Record:

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

Ministry of the Attorney General, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent;

Department of Justice, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Canada;

Department of Justice, Sainte-Foy, Quebec, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Quebec;

J.L. Bloomenfeld, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the Criminal Lawyers' Association (Ontario);

Desrosiers, Turcotte, Marchand, Massi­cotte, Montréal, Quebec, for the intervener, the Association des avocats de la défense de Montréal.

This appeal was heard on April 23, 2002, before McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On October 10, 2002, the decision of the court was delivered in both official lan­guages and the following opinions were filed:

McLachlin, C.J.C. (L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Bastarache and Binnie, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 46;

Iacobucci, J., dissenting (Major, Arbour and LeBel, JJ., concurring) - see para­graphs 47 to 129.