R. v. Hall (D.S.), (2000) 136 O.A.C. 20 (CA)

• Judge: Osborne, A.C.J.O., Finlayson and Labrosse, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: March 14, 2000
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (2000), 136 O.A.C. 20 (CA)

R. v. Hall (D.S.) (2000), 136 O.A.C. 20 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] O.A.C. TBEd. SE.001

Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) v. David Scott Hall (appellant) and The Attorney General of Canada and Ontario Criminal Lawyers' Association (interveners)

(C33149)

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

Ontario Court of Appeal

Osborne, A.C.J.O., Finlayson and Labrosse, JJ.A.

September 1, 2000.

Summary:

An accused was charged with first degree murder. During a bail hearing, the 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 held that the accused's detention was necessary in order to maintain confidence in the administration of justice. The accused sought an order of habeas corpus. He argued that the tertiary ground for detention under s. 515(10)(c) of the Criminal Code violated ss. 7 and 11(e) of the Charter and sought a declaration that s. 515(10)(c) was of no force and effect.

The Ontario Superior Court, in a decision reported [1999] O.T.C. 80, held that s. 515(10)(c) did not contravene s. 11(e) of the Charter and was not vague or over­broad. The ac­cused appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

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 an accused could be detained where the detention was necessary in order to maintain confidence in the ad­ministration of justice - The section also listed some factors that could be con­sidered in making a decision - The Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed that s. 515(10)(c) was neither vague nor overbroad and, therefore, did not violate s. 11(e) of the Charter - Section 515(10)(c) provided sufficient direction to afford guidance for informed legal debate - The court affirmed that s. 515(10)(c) was necessary to pro­mote the proper functioning of the bail system, stating that "maintaining con­fidence in the administration of justice, is not a value 'extraneous' to the bail system" - See paragraphs 46 to 53.

Civil Rights - Topic 3107.2

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - General principles and definitions - Overbreadth principle - [See 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 Civil Rights - Topic 3107 and first Civil Rights - Topic 3622 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 3622

Detention and imprisonment - Bail and interim release - Denial of bail without just cause - Section 515(10)(c) of the Criminal Code provided that an accused could be detained where the detention was necessary in order to maintain confidence in the administration of justice - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that s. 515(10)(c) did not deny reasonable bail "without just cause" contrary to s. 11(e) of the Charter - "Just cause" under s. 11(e) was not limited to securing the accused's presence in court and the need to protect the public (i.e. ss. 515(10)(a) and 515(10)(b)) - The court stated that "the need to maintain con­fidence in the administration of criminal justice is a value which falls within the ambit of 'just cause' in s. 11(e) of the Charter. Recognizing this value works to promote the proper functioning of the bail system." - See paragraphs 32 to 38.

Civil Rights - Topic 3622

Detention and imprisonment - Bail and interim release - Denial of bail without just cause - [See 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 - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3107 and first Civil Rights - Topic 3622 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Morales (M.), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 711; 144 N.R. 176; 51 Q.A.C. 161; 77 C.C.C.(3d) 91, consd. [para. 8].

R. v. Pearson (E.), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 665; 144 N.R. 243; 52 Q.A.C. 1; 77 C.C.C.(3d) 124, consd. [para. 16].

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. [para. 17].

MacKeigan, J.A., et al. v. Royal Commis­sion (Marshall Inquiry), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 796; 100 N.R. 81; 94 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 247 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 18].

MacKeigan v. Hickman - see MacKeigan, J.A., et al. v. Royal Commission (Mar­shall Inquiry).

R. v. Valente, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 673; 64 N.R. 1; 14 O.A.C. 79, refd to. [para. 18].

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; 110 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. B.E. (1999), 126 O.A.C. 173; 139 C.C.C.(3d) 100 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

Reference Re Provincial Electoral Bounda­ries (Sask.), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 158; 127 N.R. 1; 94 Sask.R. 161; 81 D.L.R.(4th) 16, refd to. [para. 32, footnote 2].

Reference Re Electoral Boundaries Com­mission Act - see Reference Re Provin­cial Electoral Boundaries (Sask.).

R. v. Conway, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1659; 96 N.R. 241; 34 O.A.C. 165; 49 C.C.C.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 37].

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; 94 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 39].

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; 74 C.C.C.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 41].

Reference Re Sections 193 and 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1123; 109 N.R. 81; 68 Man.R.(2d) 1; 56 C.C.C.(3d) 65; [1990] 4 W.W.R. 481; 77 C.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 46].

Prostitution Reference - see Reference Re Sections 193 and 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code.

R. v. Farinacci (L.W.) et al. (1993), 67 O.A.C. 197; 86 C.C.C.(3d) 32 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Dakin, [1989] O.J. No. 1348 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 53].

Statutes Noticed:

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

Counsel:

John Norris, for the appellant;

Eric Siebenmorgen, for the respondent;

Peter DeFreitas, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Canada;

Louis P. Strezos, for the intervener, the Criminal Lawyers' Association of On­tario.

This appeal was heard on March 14, 2000, by Osborne, A.C.J.O., Finlayson and La­brosse, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Ap­peal. Osborne, A.C.J.O., released the fol­lowing judgment for the Court of Appeal on September 1, 2000.