R. v. Harper, (1994) 172 N.R. 91 (SCC)
Judge | McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ. |
Court | Supreme Court (Canada) |
Case Date | September 29, 1994 |
Jurisdiction | Canada (Federal) |
Citations | (1994), 172 N.R. 91 (SCC);118 DLR (4th) 312;33 CR (4th) 61;[1994] SCJ No 71 (QL);[1994] 3 SCR 343;23 CRR (2d) 291;1994 CanLII 68 (SCC);97 Man R (2d) 1;6 MVR (3d) 138;79 WAC 1;172 NR 91;92 CCC (3d) 423 |
R. v. Harper (1994), 172 N.R. 91 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
....................
Marcel George Harper (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent)
(23160)
Indexed As: R. v. Harper
Supreme Court of Canada
Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-
Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory,
McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.
September 29, 1994.
Summary:
The accused was charged with assault causing bodily harm. He sought to have an inculpatory statement he made to police excluded, arguing that his s. 10(b) Charter rights (i.e., his rights to counsel) were violated.
The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, per Darichuk, J., admitted the inculpatory statement, holding that the accused understood his legal rights and that Legal Aid was available. The accused was convicted. The accused appealed.
The Manitoba Court of Appeal, in a decision reported 78 Man.R.(2d) 227; 16 W.A.C. 227, dismissed the appeal, holding that there was no breach of s. 10(b). The accused appealed again.
The Supreme Court of Canada held that the accused suffered a violation of his right to counsel under s. 10(b) because he was not informed of the availability of immediate, free and preliminary legal advice from duty counsel. The court held, however, that his inculpatory statement should not be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter. The court dismissed the accused's appeal.
Civil Rights - Topic 4601
Right to counsel - General - The Supreme Court of Canada reiterated that "... a detainee is entitled under the information component of the right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Charter to be advised of whatever system for free and immediate, preliminary legal advice which exists in the jurisdiction at the time and of how such advice can be accessed" - See paragraph 9.
Civil Rights - Topic 4602
Right to counsel - Denial of - Evidence taken inadmissible - While police were investigating a domestic dispute, the accused was informed of his right to counsel and legal aid (Charter, s. 10(b)) - The accused stated that "... I did that to her ..." - Convicted of assault causing bodily harm - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the accused's counsel rights were violated because police failed to inform him of the availability of immediate, free and preliminary legal advice from duty counsel - The court held, however, that the accused's inculpatory statement would have been made even if his rights had not been violated - Therefore, admission of the statement would not significantly affect the trial's fairness and the violation was minor - The statement should not be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.
Civil Rights - Topic 4604
Right to counsel - Denial of - What constitutes - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4602 ].
Civil Rights - Topic 4609
Right to counsel - Duty of authority to explain right to counsel - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4602 ].
Civil Rights - Topic 4617.1
Right to counsel - Notice - Sufficiency of - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4601 ].
Civil Rights - Topic 8368
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4602 ].
Cases Noticed:
R. v. Bartle (K.) (1994), 172 N.R. 1; 74 O.A.C. 161 (S.C.C.), appld. [para. 1 et seq.].
R. v. Baldwin (E.O.M.) - see R. v. Bartle (K.).
R. v. Pozniak (W.) (1994), 172 N.R. 72; 74 O.A.C. 232 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 1].
R. v. Matheson (R.N.) (1994), 172 N.R. 108; 123 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 271; 382 A.P.R. 271 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 1].
R. v. Prosper (1994), 172 N.R. 161; 133 N.S.R.(2d) 321; 380 A.P.R. 321 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 1].
R. v. Brydges, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 190; 103 N.R. 282; 104 A.R. 124; 53 C.C.C.(3d) 330; 74 C.R.(3d) 129; [1990] 2 W.W.R. 220; 71 Alta. L.R.(2d) 145, refd to. [para. 6].
R. v. Strachan, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 980; 90 N.R. 273; 46 C.C.C.(3d) 479; 67 C.R.(3d) 87; 56 D.L.R.(4th) 673; 37 C.R.R. 335; [1989] 1 W.W.R. 385, refd to. [para. 13].
R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276; 56 C.R.(3d) 193; [1987] 3 W.W.R. 699; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 508; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 28 C.R.R. 122; 13 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [paras. 14, 31].
R. v. Schmautz, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 398; 106 N.R. 81; 53 C.C.C.(3d) 556; 75 C.R.(3d) 129; 45 C.R.R. 245; 44 B.C.L.R.(2d) 273, refd to. [para. 17].
Statutes Noticed:
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 10(b), sect. 24(2) [para. 1 et seq.].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Prairie Research Associates, Duty Counsel Systems: Summary Report (April 1993), p. 34 [para. 9].
Prairie Research Associates, Duty Counsel Systems: Technical Report (April 1993), p. 4-95 [para. 9].
Counsel:
Bill Armstrong, for the appellant;
Donna J. Miller, Q.C., for the respondent.
Solicitors of Record:
Bill Armstrong, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the appellant;
Attorney General of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the respondent.
This case was heard on March 2 and 3, 1994, before Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision of the court was delivered in both official languages on September 29, 1994, including the following opinions:
Lamer, C.J.C. (La Forest, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory and Iacobucci, JJ.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 19;
McLachlin, J., concurring - see paragraphs 20 to 25;
Major, J., concurring in the result - see paragraphs 26 to 28;
L'Heureux-Dubé, J., concurring in the result - see paragraphs 29 to 33.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
R. v. Stillman (W.W.D.), (1997) 185 N.B.R.(2d) 1 (SCC)
...171, refd to. [para. 106]. R. v. Silveira (A.), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 297; 181 N.R. 161; 81 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 113]. R. v. Harper, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 343; 172 N.R. 91; 97 Man.R.(2d) 1; 79 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 116]. R. v. Hebert, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 151; 110 N.R. 1; [1990] 5 W.W.R. 1; 57 C.......
-
R. v. Latimer (R.W.), (1995) 134 Sask.R. 1 (CA)
...161, consd. [para. 22]. R. v. Cobham, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 360; 172 N.R. 123; 157 A.R. 81; 77 W.A.C. 81, consd. [para. 22]. R. v. Harper, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 343; 172 N.R. 91; 97 Man.R.(2d) 1; 79 W.A.C. 1, consd. [para. 22]. R. v. Matheson (R.N.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 328; 172 N.R. 108; 123 Nfld. & P......
-
R. v. Bartle (K.), (1994) 172 N.R. 1 (SCC)
...Rights - Topic 4602 ]. Cases Noticed: R. v. Pozniak (W.) (1994), 172 N.R. 72; 74 O.A.C. 232 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 1]. R. v. Harper (1994), 172 N.R. 91; 97 Man.R.(2d) 1; 79 W.A.C. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 1]. R. v. Matheson (R.N.) (1994), 172 N.R. 108; 123 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 271; 38......
-
R. v. Prosper, (1994) 172 N.R. 161 (SCC)
...161 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 1]. R. v. Pozniak (W.) (1994), 172 N.R. 72; 74 O.A.C. 232 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 1]. R. v. Harper (1994), 172 N.R. 91; 97 Man.R.(2d) 1; 79 W.A.C. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 1]. R. v. Brydges, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 190; 103 N.R. 282; 104 A.R. 124; 53 C.C.C.(3d) 33......
-
R. v. Stillman (W.W.D.), (1997) 185 N.B.R.(2d) 1 (SCC)
...171, refd to. [para. 106]. R. v. Silveira (A.), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 297; 181 N.R. 161; 81 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 113]. R. v. Harper, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 343; 172 N.R. 91; 97 Man.R.(2d) 1; 79 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 116]. R. v. Hebert, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 151; 110 N.R. 1; [1990] 5 W.W.R. 1; 57 C.......
-
R. v. Latimer (R.W.), (1995) 134 Sask.R. 1 (CA)
...161, consd. [para. 22]. R. v. Cobham, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 360; 172 N.R. 123; 157 A.R. 81; 77 W.A.C. 81, consd. [para. 22]. R. v. Harper, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 343; 172 N.R. 91; 97 Man.R.(2d) 1; 79 W.A.C. 1, consd. [para. 22]. R. v. Matheson (R.N.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 328; 172 N.R. 108; 123 Nfld. & P......
-
R. v. Bartle (K.), (1994) 172 N.R. 1 (SCC)
...Rights - Topic 4602 ]. Cases Noticed: R. v. Pozniak (W.) (1994), 172 N.R. 72; 74 O.A.C. 232 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 1]. R. v. Harper (1994), 172 N.R. 91; 97 Man.R.(2d) 1; 79 W.A.C. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 1]. R. v. Matheson (R.N.) (1994), 172 N.R. 108; 123 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 271; 38......
-
R. v. Prosper, (1994) 172 N.R. 161 (SCC)
...161 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 1]. R. v. Pozniak (W.) (1994), 172 N.R. 72; 74 O.A.C. 232 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 1]. R. v. Harper (1994), 172 N.R. 91; 97 Man.R.(2d) 1; 79 W.A.C. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 1]. R. v. Brydges, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 190; 103 N.R. 282; 104 A.R. 124; 53 C.C.C.(3d) 33......
-
Peace, Order, Good Government And'climate Change: The Supreme Court Articulates The Constitutional Doctrine Of The National Concern
...the impugned act or provision. The second step is to classify the impugned act or provision under one of the heads of power set out in ss. 91 or 92 C.A. 1867,4 thereby determining its intra vires character. These two steps are First, the Supreme Court provided a thorough review of the intri......
-
Improperly Obtained Evidence
...where it can be said 177 Grant , above note 4 at para 96. 178 R v Welsh , 2013 ONCA 190 at paras 82–85 [ Welsh ]. 179 R v Harper (1994), 33 CR (4th) 61 (SCC). 180 R v Hachez (1995), 42 CR (4th) 69 (Ont CA); and see United States of America v Yousef (2003), 178 CCC (3d) 286 (Ont CA). 181 Wha......
-
Notes
...30 As quoted in Schmitz, “Supreme Court goes ‘too far’: Judge,” A1, A4. 31 R. v. Mohl (1989), 37 CCC (3d) 565 (SCC); R. v. Harper (1994), 92 CCC (3d) 423 (SCC). See Kent Roach, “The Evolving Fair Trial Test under Section 24(2) of the Charter” (1996) 1 Canadian Criminal Law Review 117 32 R. ......
-
Table of cases
...679 R v Hape (2007), 220 CCC (3d) 161 (SCC) ...................................................47, 478 R v Harper (1994), 33 CR (4th) 61 (SCC)........................................................... 502 R v Harrer, [1995] 3 SCR 562, 42 CR (4th) 269 (SCC) ........447, 448, 478, 515, 517 R......
-
The Constitution Act, 1867: Federalism and Judicial Power
...37 This is because virtually no field of jurisdiction can be found that is not covered by one or more enumerated heads of power in sections 91 or 92. Thus, while the enumerated heads of federal authority were preceded by the express proviso that they were not to limit the generality of the......