R. v. O'Kane (P.J.) et al.,

• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Judge: Monnin, Hamilton and MacInnes, JJ.A.
• Neutral Citation: 2012 MBCA 82
• Citation: (2012), 284 Man.R.(2d) 72 (CA),2012 MBCA 82,292 CCC (3d) 222,[2012] MJ No 307 (QL),284 Man R (2d) 72,284 Man.R.(2d) 72,[2012] M.J. No 307 (QL),284 ManR(2d) 72,(2012), 284 ManR(2d) 72 (CA)
• Date: 22 September 2011
• Court: Court of Appeal (Manitoba)

R. v. O'Kane (P.J.) (2012), 284 Man.R.(2d) 72 (CA);

      555 W.A.C. 72

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2012] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. OC.016

Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. Peter John O'Kane (accused/respondent)

(AR 11-30-07530)

Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. Jess John Zebrun (accused/respondent)

(AR 11-30-07531; 2012 MBCA 82)

Indexed As: R. v. O'Kane (P.J.) et al.

Manitoba Court of Appeal

Monnin, Hamilton and MacInnes, JJ.A.

September 27, 2012.

Summary:

The accused police officers were charged with perjury and being unlawfully in a dwelling house. At their jury trial, after denying the Crown's motion to reopen its case to present "in dock" identification of the accused, the trial judge directed that the accused be acquitted based on a lack of identification evidence. The Crown appealed.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal allowed the appeals, set aside the acquittals and ordered a new trial.

Criminal Law - Topic 4440

Procedure - Verdicts - Discharges and dismissals - Directed verdicts - Appeals - The accused police officers were charged with perjury and being unlawfully in a dwelling house - At their jury trial, the trial judge denied the Crown's motion to reopen its case to present "in dock" identification of the accused - The trial judge then directed that the accused be acquitted based on a lack of identification evidence (no "in dock" identification) - The Crown appealed, arguing that there was circumstantial evidence of identification that should have gone to the jury - The Manitoba Court of Appeal allowed the appeals, set aside the acquittals and ordered a new trial - The judge erred in law when she directed the verdicts of acquittal on the basis of lack of identification - There was some admissible identity evidence that was sufficient to resist the motions for a directed verdict - This was not one of those exceptional cases where an error of law in directing a verdict of acquittal should not result in a new trial - See paragraphs 40 to 84.

Criminal Law - Topic 4440

Procedure - Verdicts - Discharges and dismissals - Directed verdicts - Appeals - The Manitoba Court of Appeal reviewed the appropriate test for ordering a new trial in a directed verdict appeal - The court concluded that the Crown had the burden to demonstrate that the legal error could have impacted the verdict of acquittal - However, it would be only in exceptional circumstances that the Crown would not be able to demonstrate the verdict might be different after a new trial - Appellate courts could not speculate as to what might have occurred if the trial had proceeded - Therefore, it would be rare that an appellate court would not order a new trial after determining that a directed verdict of acquittal was an error of law, particularly when the trial was with a jury - See paragraphs 52 to 71.

Criminal Law - Topic 4440

Procedure - Verdicts - Discharges and dismissals - Directed verdicts - Appeals - The Manitoba Court of Appeal stated that "...  the Crown must have a burden on an appeal from a directed verdict of acquittal to satisfy the court that a new trial is warranted. It would be a miscarriage of justice for an appellate court to order a new trial in a case where there is no likelihood that the new trial would result in a different verdict. However, ... the case law demonstrates that the burden is easily met and that it is only in exceptional circumstances that a new trial will not be ordered after an appellate court concludes that a trial judge erred in law in directing an acquittal." - See paragraph 57.

Criminal Law - Topic 4560

Procedure - Trial - Motions - Motion for a directed verdict - [See all Criminal Law - Topic 4440 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4570

Procedure - Conduct of trial - Re-opening trial to hear additional evidence - The accused police officers were charged with perjury and being unlawfully in a dwelling house - At their jury trial, the trial judge denied the Crown's motion to reopen its case to present "in dock" identification of the accused - The Crown appealed - The Manitoba Court of Appeal stated that the decision of whether or not to permit the Crown to reopen its case was a matter of discretion for the trial judge - The decision was not unjust - See paragraphs 28 to 34.

Criminal Law - Topic 4944

Appeals - Indictable offences - New trials - When available - General - [See all Criminal Law - Topic 4440 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Vezeau, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 277; 8 N.R. 235, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Graveline (R.), [2006] 1 S.C.R. 609; 347 N.R. 268; 2006 SCC 16, refd to. [para. 27].

Elsom v. Elsom, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1367; 96 N.R. 165, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Katzenback (J.P.) (2011), 515 A.R. 141; 532 W.A.C. 141; 2011 ABCA 318, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Robillard, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 728; 21 N.R. 557, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. M.B.P., [1994] 1 S.C.R. 555; 165 N.R. 321; 70 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. S.G.G., [1997] 2 S.C.R. 716; 214 N.R. 161; 94 B.C.A.C. 81; 152 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Dill (T.T.) (2005), 375 A.R. 210; 2005 ABQB 49, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Smith (D.H.) (2011), 382 Sask.R. 150; 2011 SKQB 324, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Gowing (S.A.) et al. (2012), 532 A.R. 312; 2012 ABPC 38, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Kotchea, 2003 NWTSC 29, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Sheppard (C.), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 869; 284 N.R. 342; 211 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 50; 633 A.P.R. 50; 2002 SCC 26, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Braich (A.) et al., [2002] 1 S.C.R. 903; 285 N.R. 162; 164 B.C.A.C. 1; 268 W.A.C. 1, 2002 SCC 27, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. R.E.M., [2008] 3 S.C.R. 3; 380 N.R. 47; 260 B.C.A.C. 40; 439 W.A.C. 40; 2008 SCC 51, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Walker (B.G.), [2008] 2 S.C.R. 245; 375 N.R. 228; 310 Sask.R. 305; 423 W.A.C. 305; 2008 SCC 34, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Kerr (M.D.J.S.), [2004] Man.R.(2d) Uned. 14; 48 M.V.R.(4th) 201; 2004 MBCA 30, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Woodard (J.) (2009), 240 Man.R.(2d) 24; 456 W.A.C. 24; 2009 MBCA 42, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Arcuri (G.), [2001] 2 S.C.R. 828; 274 N.R. 274; 150 O.A.C. 126; 2001 SCC 54, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Barros (R.), [2011] 3 S.C.R. 368; 421 N.R. 270; 513 A.R. 1; 530 W.A.C. 1; 2011 SCC 51, refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Nicholson (1984), 52 A.R. 132 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied (1984), 56 N.R. 234; 55 A.R. 240 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Chandra (1975), 29 C.C.C.(2d) 570 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. D.R.H. (2007), 220 Man.R.(2d) 271; 407 W.A.C. 271; 2007 MBCA 136, refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Zarubin (G.A.) (2004), 241 Sask.R. 292; 313 W.A.C. 292; 2004 SKCA 14, refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. J.V.-R. (1999), 120 O.A.C. 298 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. D.B., [2007] O.A.C. Uned. 207; 2007 ONCA 368, refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Sutton (K.M.), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 595; 262 N.R. 384; 230 N.B.R.(2d) 205; 593 A.P.R. 205; 2000 SCC 50, refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. Ebner, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 996; 28 N.R. 91, refd to. [para. 58].

R. v. Monteleone, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 154; 78 N.R. 377; 23 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 58].

R. v. Dyer (1991), 90 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 225; 280 A.P.R. 225 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 61].

R. v. Allen, [1993] O.J. No. 3644 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 61].

R. v. Martell (D.F.) (1999), 173 N.S.R.(2d) 48; 527 A.P.R. 48 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 61].

R. v. Blizzard (A.J.) et al. (2002), 247 N.B.R.(2d) 203; 641 A.P.R. 203; 2002 NBCA 13, refd to. [para. 61].

R. v. Robinson (W.D.) (2005), 232 N.S.R.(2d) 46; 737 A.P.R. 46; 2005 NSCA 65, refd to. [para. 61].

R. v. Solomon (J.N.) (2006), 299 N.B.R.(2d) 327; 778 A.P.R. 327; 2006 NBCA 52, refd to. [para. 61].

R. v. Plaha (H.S.) et al., [2008] O.A.C. Uned. 55; 2008 ONCA 96, refd to. [para. 61].

R. v. Masterson (F.), [2008] O.A.C. Uned. 337; 2008 ONCA 481, refd to. [para. 61].

R. v. Hutchinson (C.) (2010), 286 N.S.R.(2d) 331; 909 A.P.R. 331; 2010 NSCA 3, refd to. [para. 61].

R. v. J.D.J.(B.)M., [2010] Sask.R. Uned. 3; 2010 SKCA 39, refd to. [para. 61].

R. v. D.L.A. (2011), 311 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 148; 967 A.P.R. 148; 2011 PECA 15, refd to. [para. 61].

R. v. M.R. (2011), 277 O.A.C. 99; 2011 ONCA 190, refd to. [para. 61].

R. v. Barrett (A.) (2012), 319 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 287; 992 A.P.R. 287; 2012 NLCA 12, refd to. [para. 61].

R. v. Sillars (1978), 45 C.C.C.(2d) 283 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Hunniford, [1982] B.C.J. No. 2268 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Pedrazzini, [1986] A.J. No. 210 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Greenwood and Tsinonis (1991), 51 O.A.C. 133; 5 O.R.(3d) 71 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Ackerman, [1992] O.J. No. 3682 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Collins (M.E.) and Pelfrey (W.D.) (1993), 60 O.A.C. 81; 12 O.R.(3d) 161 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Seth (L.W.) (2001), 147 O.A.C. 101 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 70].

R. v. Evans (D.L.) (1995), 102 Man.R.(2d) 186; 93 W.A.C. 186 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 74].

R. v. Vasarhelyi (P.) (2011), 278 O.A.C. 95; 2011 ONCA 397, refd to. [para. 75].

R. v. Parsons (G.J.) (1992), 100 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 260; 318 A.P.R. 260 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 75].

R. v. Vetrovec; R. v. Gaja, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 811; 41 N.R. 606, refd to. [para. 76].

R. v. Neveu (2004), 184 C.C.C.(3d) 18 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 76].

R. v. Bouchard (1982), 13 Man.R.(2d) 344 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 77].

R. v. Bosley (M.) (1992), 59 O.A.C. 161 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 80].

R. v. Reyat (I.S.) (2012), 324 B.C.A.C. 311; 551 W.A.C. 311; 2012 BCCA 311, refd to. [para. 82].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Manning, Morris, and Sankoff, Peter, Manning, Mewett & Sankoff: Criminal Law (4th Ed. 2009), p. 638 [para. 78].

McWilliams, Peter K., Canadian Criminal Evidence (4th Ed.) (2010 Looseleaf Update), vol. 2, paras. 29:10 [para. 44]; 29:40.20.90 [para. 48]; 31:30.10 [para. 75].

Salhany, Roger E., Canadian Criminal Procedure (6th Ed.) (2010 Looseleaf Ed.), vol. 1, paras. 6.3975, 6.3980, 6.3990 [para. 30].

Counsel:

R.L. Tapper, Q.C., and J.D. Kendall, for the appellant;

S.E. Pinx, Q.C., and T.E. Bourcier, for the respondent, P.J. O'Kane;

H. Weinstein, Q.C., and J.A. Weinstein, for the respondent, J.J. Zebrun.

These appeals were heard on September 22, 2011, by Monnin, Hamilton and MacInnes, JJ.A., of the Manitoba Court of Appeal. The following judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered by Hamilton, J.A., on September 27, 2012.