R. v. Hynes (D.W.), (2001) 278 N.R. 299 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: December 06, 2001
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2001), 278 N.R. 299 (SCC);2001 SCC 82

R. v. Hynes (D.W.) (2001), 278 N.R. 299 (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: [2001] N.R. TBEd. DE.003

Dwayne W. Hynes (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) and The Attorney General of Canada, The Attorney General for Ontario, The Attorney General of Manitoba, The Attorney General of British Columbia and The Attorney General for Alberta (interveners)

(27443; 2001 SCC 82)

Indexed As: R. v. Hynes (D.W.)

Supreme Court of Canada

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

December 6, 2001.

Summary:

The accused was charged with causing death by criminal negligence (s. 220 of the Criminal Code), failure to stop at an accident scene (s. 252(1)(b)), and impaired driving (s. 255(3)). The accused applied for a declar­ation that a preliminary inquiry judge or justice was a "court of competent jurisdic­tion" under s. 24(1) of the Charter for the purpose of excluding Charter-offending evidence under s. 24(2).

The Newfoundland Provincial Court, in an unreported oral decision, dismissed the ap­plication. The accused applied for an order in the nature of certiorari and mandamus to direct the preliminary inquiry judge to con­duct the inquiry under s. 24.

The Newfoundland Supreme Court, Trial Division, in an unreported oral decision, dismissed the application. The accused ap­pealed.

The Newfoundland Court of Appeal, Green, J.A., dissenting, dismissed the appeal. See 177 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 232; 543 A.P.R. 232. The accused appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, Major, Iacobucci, Binnie and Arbour, JJ., dissenting, dismissed the appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 8363

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Jurisdiction (incl. court of competent jurisdiction) - Prelimi­nary inquiry judge - The Supreme Court of Canada held that a justice presiding at a preliminary inquiry was not a court of competent jurisdiction for the purposes of an application under s. 24(1) of the Charter to exclude evidence under s. 24(2) - In particular, the power of a preliminary inquiry justice to exclude confessions under s. 542(1) of the Criminal Code did not extend to exclusion on Charter grounds - See paragraphs 1 to 50.

Civil Rights - Topic 8504

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Enforcement - Jurisdiction - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8363 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 3527

Preliminary inquiry - Jurisdiction - Char­ter issues - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8363 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 3528

Preliminary inquiry - Jurisdiction - Whether court of competent jurisdiction under Charter - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8363 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Mills, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 863; 67 N.R. 241; 16 O.A.C. 81; 52 C.R.(3d) 1; 26 C.C.C.(3d) 481, folld. [paras. 6, 58].

R. v. Smith (M.H.), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1120; 102 N.R. 205; 63 Man.R.(2d) 81, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Seaboyer and Gayme, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 577; 128 N.R. 81; 48 O.A.C. 81; 66 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 7 C.R.(4th) 117; 83 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [paras. 6, 101].

R. v. Bernard, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 833; 90 N.R. 321; 32 O.A.C. 161; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 67 C.R.(3d) 113; 38 C.R.R. 82, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Robinson (D.), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 683; 194 N.R. 1; 72 B.C.A.C. 161; 119 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Chaulk and Morrissette, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1303; 119 N.R. 161; 69 Man.R.(2d) 161; [1991] 2 W.W.R. 385; 62 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 1 C.R.R.(2d) 1; 2 C.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [paras. 22, 112].

R. v. K.G.B., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 740; 148 N.R. 241; 61 O.A.C. 1; 79 C.C.C.(3d) 257, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. 974649 Ontario Inc. et al. (2001) 279 N.R. 345 (S.C.C.), appld. [paras. 23, 61].

R. v. Caccamo, [1976] 1 S.C.R. 786; 4 N.R. 133; 21 C.C.C.(2d) 257, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Skogman, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 93; 54 N.R. 34; 13 C.C.C.(3d) 161, refd to. [paras. 30, 78].

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; 103 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Chew, [1968] 2 C.C.C. 127 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Girimonte (F.) (1997), 105 O.A.C. 337; 121 C.C.C.(3d) 33 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Richards (M.) (1997), 100 O.A.C. 215; 115 C.C.C.(3d) 377 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

United States of America v. Shephard, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 1067; 9 N.R. 215; 30 C.C.C.(2d) 424; 70 D.L.R.(3d) 136; 34 C.R.N.S. 207, refd to. [paras. 34, 63].

R. v. Patterson, [1970] S.C.R. 409; 10 C.R.N.S. 55; 72 W.W.R.(N.S.) 35; 2 C.C.C.(2d) 229; 9 D.L.R.(3d) 398, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Rahey, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 588; 75 N.R. 81; 78 N.S.R.(2d) 183; 193 A.P.R. 183; 57 C.R.(3d) 289; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 39 D.L.R.(4th) 481; 33 C.R.R. 275, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Garofoli et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1421; 116 N.R. 241; 43 O.A.C. 1; 36 Q.A.C. 161; 60 C.C.C.(3d) 161; 80 C.R.(3d) 317; 50 C.R.R. 206, refd to. [para. 40].

Kourtessis v. Minister of National Revenue et al., [1993] 2 S.C.R. 53; 153 N.R. 1; 27 B.C.A.C. 81; 45 W.A.C. 81; [1993] 4 W.W.R. 225; 81 C.C.C.(3d) 286, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Power (E.), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 601; 165 N.R. 241; 117 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 269; 365 A.P.R. 269; 89 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 29 C.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276; [1987] 3 W.W.R. 699; 56 C.R.(3d) 193; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 508; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 13 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1; 28 C.R.R. 122, refd to. [paras. 42, 121].

R. v. Duguay, Murphy and Sevigny, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 93; 91 N.R. 201; 31 O.A.C. 177; 46 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 56 D.L.R.(4th) 46, refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Stillman (W.W.D.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 607; 209 N.R. 81; 185 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 472 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [paras. 42, 66].

R. v. Belnavis (A.) and Lawrence (C.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 341; 216 N.R. 161; 103 O.A.C. 81; 118 C.C.C.(3d) 405, refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Oickle (R.F.), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 3; 259 N.R. 227; 187 N.S.R.(2d) 201; 585 A.P.R. 201, refd to. [paras. 48, 67].

R. v. Pearson (1957), 117 C.C.C. 249 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 51].

R. v. Ferrero (1981), 29 A.R. 469; 59 C.C.C.(2d) 93 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 51].

R. v. Ward (1976), 31 C.C.C.(2d) 466 (Ont. H.C.), affd. (1977), 31 C.C.C.(2d) 466 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 51].

R. v. Feeney (M.), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 13; 212 N.R. 83; 91 B.C.A.C. 1; 148 W.A.C. 1; 115 C.C.C.(3d) 129, refd to. [para. 66].

R. v. Caslake (T.L.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 51; 221 N.R. 281; 123 Man.R.(2d) 208; 159 W.A.C. 208; 121 C.C.C.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 66].

R. v. Cook (D.R.), [1998] 2 S.C.R. 597; 230 N.R. 83; 112 B.C.A.C. 1; 182 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 66].

R. v. Rothman, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 640; 35 N.R. 485; 59 C.C.C.(2d) 30, refd to. [para. 68].

R. v. Grossi (E.) (1992), 133 A.R. 278 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 70].

R. v. McIntosh (C.) (1999), 128 O.A.C. 69; 141 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 72].

R. v. Barbeau, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 845; 140 N.R. 211; 75 C.C.C.(3d) 129, refd to. [para. 78].

R. v. L.R. (1995), 100 C.C.C.(3d) 329 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 83].

R. v. George (1991), 50 O.A.C. 391; 5 O.R.(3d) 144 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 92].

R. v. Dawson (W.) et al. (1998), 107 O.A.C. 375; 123 C.C.C.(3d) 385 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 92].

R. v. Arviv (1985), 8 O.A.C. 92; 19 C.C.C.(3d) 395 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused, [1985] 1 S.C.R. v; 61 N.R. 237; 10 O.A.C. 158; 19 C.C.C.(3d) 395, refd to. [para. 97].

R. v. Ertel (1987), 20 O.A.C. 257; 58 C.R.(3d) 252; 35 C.C.C.(3d) 398; 30 C.R.R. 209 (C.A.), leave to appeal re­fused, [1987] 2 S.C.R. vii; 86 N.R. 266; 24 O.A.C. 320, refd to. [para. 97].

R. v. Schwartz, [1977] 1 S.C.R. 673; 8 N.R. 585, refd to. [para. 103].

R. v. Jewitt, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 128; 61 N.R. 159; 21 C.C.C.(3d) 7, refd to. [para. 110].

Watkins v. Olafson et al., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 750; 100 N.R. 161; 61 Man.R.(2d) 81; 61 D.L.R.(4th) 577; [1989] 6 W.W.R. 481; 39 B.C.L.R.(2d) 294, refd to. [para. 114].

R. v. Therens, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 613; 59 N.R. 122; 40 Sask.R. 122; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 655; [1985] 4 W.W.R. 286; 32 M.V.R. 153; 45 C.R.(3d) 97; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 121].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 542(1) [para. 5].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Alford, D.G., Some Statistics on the Pre­liminary Inquiry in Canada (1984), p. vii [para. 87].

Canada, Department of Justice, Do we still need preliminary inquiries? Options for changes to the Criminal Code, Consulta­tion Paper (1994), p. 4 [para. 79].

Del Buono, V.M., Criminal Procedure in Canada (1982), p. 305 [para. 84].

Freedman, Samuel, Admissions and Con­fessions, in Salhany, Roger E., and Carter, Robert J., Studies in Canadian Criminal Evidence (1972), pp. 95 et seq. [para. 75].

Gold, Alan D., and Presser, Jill R., Let's Not Do Away with the Preliminaries: A Case in Favour of Retaining the Prelimi­nary Inquiry (1996), 1 Can. Crim. L.R. 145, pp. 148 [para. 88]; 154 [para. 94]; 170 [para. 90].

Greenspan, Edward L., and Rosenberg, Marc, The Preliminary Inquiry, in Del Buono, V.M., Criminal Procedure in Canada (1982), p. 305 [para. 84].

Martin, G. Arthur, Preliminary Hearings, in Special Lectures of the Law Society of Upper Canada (1955), pp. 8, 9 [para. 71].

Martin's Annual Criminal Code (2002), p. 907 [para. 56].

Ontario, Report of the Criminal Justice Review Committee (1999), p. 90 [para. 87].

Ontario, Royal Commission Inquiry into Civil Rights, Report No. 1 (1968), vol. 2, pp. 519, 520 [para. 55].

Pomerant, D., and Gilmour, G., A Survey of the Preliminary Inquiry in Canada (1993), pp. 7 [para. 87]; 37, footnote 127 [para. 88].

Salhany, R.E. and Carter, R.J., Studies in Canadian Criminal Evidence (1972), p. 99 [para. 75].

Stuart, Don, Annotation to Mills v. R. (1986), 52 C.R.(3d) 1, pp. 7, 8 [para. 117].

Counsel:

David C. Day, Q.C., for the appellant;

Thomas G. Mills, for the respondent;

S. R. Fainstein, Q.C., and Peter De Freitas, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Canada;

Robert Kelly, for the intervener, the Attorney General for Ontario;

Darrin R. Davis, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Manitoba;

Alexander Budlovsky, for the intervener, the Attorney General of British Colum­bia;

Written submission only by James A. Bowron for the intervener, the Attorney General for Alberta.

Solicitors of Record:

Lewis, Day, St. John's, Newfoundland, for the appellant;

Department of Justice, St. John's, New­foundland, for the respondent;

Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Canada;

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

Department of Justice, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the intervener, the Attor­ney General of Manitoba;

Ministry of the Attorney General, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Brit­ish Columbia;

Department of Justice, Edmonton, Alberta, for the intervener, the Attorney General for Alberta.

This appeal was heard on February 13, 2001, by McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Basta­rache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Supreme Court of Canada delivered the following decision in both official languages on December 6, 2001, which included the following opinions:

McLachlin, C.J.C. (L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Bastarache and LeBel, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 50;

Major, J. (Iacobucci, Binnie and Arbour, JJ., concurring), dissenting - see para­graphs 51 to 125.