R. v. Kimberley (C.M.) et al., (2001) 151 O.A.C. 42 (CA)
| Judge | Doherty, Austin and MacPherson, JJ.A. |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Ontario) |
| Case Date | September 13, 2001 |
| Jurisdiction | Ontario |
| Citations | (2001), 151 O.A.C. 42 (CA);2001 CanLII 24120 (ON CA);56 OR (3d) 18;157 CCC (3d) 129;45 CR (5th) 273;[2001] OJ No 3603 (QL);151 OAC 42 |
R. v. Kimberley (C.M.) (2001), 151 O.A.C. 42 (CA)
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite: [2001] O.A.C. TBEd. SE.017
Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) v. Craig Martin Kimberley and Thomas Rory Clancey (appellants)
(C25604; C25637)
Indexed As: R. v. Kimberley (C.M.) et al.
Ontario Court of Appeal
Doherty, Austin and MacPherson, JJ.A.
September 13, 2001.
Summary:
The accused appealed their convictions on a charge of first degree murder.
The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed their appeals.
Criminal Law - Topic 1269
Murder - General principles - First degree murder - What constitutes - The accused struck a young female doctor outside the elevator of the underground parking area of her condominium building and knocked her unconscious - They dragged her body across the elevator lobby and down a ramp that was outside the range of the security camera - They beat and kicked the victim repeatedly until she died of her injuries - They stole her purse and bought drugs - They were convicted by a jury of first degree murder - They appealed - The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - Unlawful confinement incidental to or in furtherance of robbery or other crimes could support a conviction for first degree murder - See paragraphs 89 to 112.
Criminal Law - Topic 4351
Procedure - Jury charge - Direction regarding burden of proof and reasonable doubt - The accused were convicted of first degree murder - They appealed arguing, inter alia, that the trial judge erred in his instruction to the jury on reasonable doubt - The Ontario Court of Appeal rejected this ground of appeal - While some of the required elements of the model charge in R. v. Lifchus were omitted and some terms that should have been avoided had been included, the deficiencies were not such that they caused serious concerns about the validity of the verdict or the fairness of the trial - See paragraphs 84 to 88.
Evidence - Topic 1527
Hearsay - Hearsay rule exceptions and exclusions - General - Where admission of hearsay necessary and evidence reliable - Teed confessed to Warrick's murder to police in British Columbia (BC statements) - Teed told Toronto police he did not commit the Warrick murder and gave various statements concerning his knowledge of the Warrick murder (Toronto statements) - Teed told yet a third version of events at a preliminary inquiry for the two accused who were charged with the Warrick murder - Teed committed suicide in his cell prior to the trial - The accused appealed their convictions for first degree murder, arguing that the trial judge erred in not admitting Teed's BC and preliminary inquiry testimony - The Ontario Court of Appeal rejected this ground of appeal - The necessity criterion was met, but the statements were unreliable - Teed did not apprehend penal consequences as a result of his BC statements and he had motives to falsely confess to murder - Accordingly, the statements were inadmissible - See paragraphs 32 to 83.
Cases Noticed:
R. v. McMillan (1975), 23 C.C.C.(2d) 160 (Ont. C.A.), affd. [1977] 2 S.C.R. 824 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 33].
R. v. Khan, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 531; 113 N.R. 53; 41 O.A.C. 353; 59 C.C.C.(3d) 92; 79 C.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 58].
R. v. Starr (R.D.), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 144; 258 N.R. 250; 148 Man.R.(2d) 161; 224 W.A.C. 161; 147 C.C.C.(3d) 449, refd to. [para. 59].
R. v. O'Brien (1977), 16 N.R. 271; 35 C.C.C.(2d) 209 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 60].
R. v. Hawkins (K.R.) and Morin (C.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1043; 204 N.R. 241; 96 O.A.C. 81; 111 C.C.C.(3d) 129, refd to. [para. 60].
R. v. F.J.U., [1995] 3 S.C.R. 764; 186 N.R. 365; 85 O.A.C. 321; 42 C.R.(4th) 133; 101 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 128 D.L.R.(4th) 121; 42 C.R.(4th) 133, refd to. [para. 60].
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; 19 C.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 63].
R. v. Demeter (1975), 25 C.C.C.(2d) 417 (Ont. C.A.), affd. (1977), 16 N.R. 46; 34 C.C.C.(2d) 137 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 68].
R. v. Smith (A.L.), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 915; 139 N.R. 323; 55 O.A.C. 321; 75 C.C.C.(3d) 257; 94 D.L.R.(4th) 590; 15 C.R.(4th) 133, refd to. [para. 71].
R. v. Williams (1985), 7 O.A.C. 201; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 356 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 80].
R. v. Finta (1992), 53 O.A.C. 1; 73 C.C.C.(3d) 65 (C.A.), affd. (1994), 165 N.R. 1; 70 O.A.C. 241; 88 C.C.C.(3d) 417 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 80].
R. v. Folland (1999), 132 C.C.C.(3d) 14 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 80].
R. v. Lifchus (W.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320; 216 N.R. 215; 118 Man.R.(2d) 218; 149 W.A.C. 218; 118 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 84].
R. v. Pan (R.W.) (1999), 120 O.A.C. 1; 134 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (C.A.), affd. (2001), 270 N.R. 317; 147 O.A.C. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 86].
R. v. Paré, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 618; 80 N.R. 272; 11 Q.A.C. 1; 38 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 60 C.R.(3d) 346; 45 D.L.R.(4th) 546, refd to. [para. 89].
R. v. Luxton, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 711; 112 N.R. 193; 111 A.R. 161; 58 C.C.C.(3d) 449, refd to. [para. 89].
R. v. Harbottle (J.), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 306; 157 N.R. 349; 66 O.A.C. 35; 84 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 24 C.R.(4th) 137, refd to. [para. 89].
R. v. Gratton (1985), 7 O.A.C. 190; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 462 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 91, footnote 3].
R. v. Gourgon (1979), 19 C.R.(3d) 272 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 94].
R. v. Pitre (1991), 2 B.C.A.C. 186; 5 W.A.C. 186 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 96].
R. v. Dollan and Newstead (1982), 65 C.C.C.(2d) 240 (Ont. C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1982), 42 N.R. 351 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 97].
R. v. Larcenaire (1987), 19 O.A.C. 93; 34 C.C.C.(3d) 548 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 100].
R. v. Strong (1990), 111 A.R. 12; 60 C.C.C.(3d) 516 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 101].
R. v. Kingsley (1995), 105 C.C.C.(3d) 85 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 101].
R. v. Simon (2001), 154 C.C.C.(3d) 562 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 101].
R. v. Peer (A.R.) (1995), 63 B.C.A.C. 161; 104 W.A.C. 161; 100 C.C.C.(3d) 251 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 101, footnote 4].
Statutes Noticed:
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 231(5)(e) [para. 89]; sect. 279(2) [para. 90].
Counsel:
Peter J. Connolly and Jan Mills, for the appellant, Kimberley;
Damian R. Frost, for the appellant, Clancey;
Lucy Cecchetto and Howard Leibovich, for the respondent.
These appeals were heard on June 28 and 29, 2001, before Doherty, Austin and MacPherson, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. On September 13, 2001, Doherty, J.A., released the following judgment for the court.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R. v. Sundman, 2022 SCC 31
...2008 SCC 59, [2008] 3 S.C.R. 195; R. v. Gratton (1985), 18 C.C.C. (3d) 462; R. v. Lemaigre (1987), 56 Sask. R. 300; R. v. Kimberley (2001), 56 O.R. (3d) 18; R. v. Johnstone, 2014 ONCA 504, 313 C.C.C. (3d) 34; R. v. Parris, 2013 ONCA 515, 300 C.C.C. (3d) 41; R. v. Newman, 2016 SCC 7, [2016] ......
-
R. v. Pritchard (D.M.), 2007 BCCA 82
...516 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 83]. R. v. Gourgon (1979), 19 C.R.(3d) 272 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 84]. R. v. Kimberley (C.M.) et al. (2001), 151 O.A.C. 42; 157 C.C.C.(3d) 129 (C.A.), refd to. [para. R. v. Clancey (T.R.) - see R. v. Kimberley (C.M.) et al. R. v. Niedermier (B.T.) (2005), 20......
-
R. v. Bradshaw, 2017 SCC 35
...140, 232 C.C.C. (3d) 158; R. v. Post, 2007 BCCA 123, 217 C.C.C. (3d) 225; R. v. Tash, 2013 ONCA 380, 306 O.A.C. 173; R. v. Kimberley (2001), 56 O.R. (3d) 18. Authors Akhtar, Suhail. “Hearsay: The Denial of Confirmation” (2005), 26 C.R. (6th) 46. Lacelle, Laurie. “The Role of Corroborating E......
-
R. v. Assoun (G.E.),
...under which the letter was written 'negate or at least ameliorate the dangers inherent in hearsay evidence.' See R. v. Kimberly (2001), 157 C.C.C.(3d) 129 (Ont. C.A.), at p. 151. If the court cannot say that the contents of the hearsay statement 'could not reasonably have been expected to h......
-
R. v. Pritchard (D.M.), 2007 BCCA 82
...516 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 83]. R. v. Gourgon (1979), 19 C.R.(3d) 272 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 84]. R. v. Kimberley (C.M.) et al. (2001), 151 O.A.C. 42; 157 C.C.C.(3d) 129 (C.A.), refd to. [para. R. v. Clancey (T.R.) - see R. v. Kimberley (C.M.) et al. R. v. Niedermier (B.T.) (2005), 20......
-
R. v. Bradshaw, 2017 SCC 35
...140, 232 C.C.C. (3d) 158; R. v. Post, 2007 BCCA 123, 217 C.C.C. (3d) 225; R. v. Tash, 2013 ONCA 380, 306 O.A.C. 173; R. v. Kimberley (2001), 56 O.R. (3d) 18. Authors Akhtar, Suhail. “Hearsay: The Denial of Confirmation” (2005), 26 C.R. (6th) 46. Lacelle, Laurie. “The Role of Corroborating E......
-
R. v. Assoun (G.E.),
...under which the letter was written 'negate or at least ameliorate the dangers inherent in hearsay evidence.' See R. v. Kimberly (2001), 157 C.C.C.(3d) 129 (Ont. C.A.), at p. 151. If the court cannot say that the contents of the hearsay statement 'could not reasonably have been expected to h......
-
R. v. Sundman, 2022 SCC 31
...2008 SCC 59, [2008] 3 S.C.R. 195; R. v. Gratton (1985), 18 C.C.C. (3d) 462; R. v. Lemaigre (1987), 56 Sask. R. 300; R. v. Kimberley (2001), 56 O.R. (3d) 18; R. v. Johnstone, 2014 ONCA 504, 313 C.C.C. (3d) 34; R. v. Parris, 2013 ONCA 515, 300 C.C.C. (3d) 41; R. v. Newman, 2016 SCC 7, [2016] ......
-
Ontario Court Of Appeal Summaries (September 9 13 2019)
...v Osolin, [1993] 4 SCR 595, R v RV, 2019 SCC 41, Morris v The Queen, [1983] 2 SCR 190, R v Marquard, [1993] 4 SCR 223, R v Kimberley (2001), 157 CCC (3d) 129, R v Clancey, [2002] SCCA No 29, R v Bradbury (1973), 14 CCC (2d) 139, R v Hungwe, 2018 ONCA 456, White Burgess Langille Inman v Abbo......
-
Ontario Court Of Appeal Summaries (May 27 31, 2019)
...35, R. v. Couture, 2007 SCC 28, Fredericks v. R., 2018 NBCA 56, R. v. Seaboyer, R. v. Gayme, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 577, R. v. Kimberley (2001), 157 C.C.C. (3d) 129 (Ont. C.A.), Azoulay v. The Queen, [1952] 2 S.C.R. 495, R. v. Bucik, 2011 ONA 546 CIVIL DECISIONS S.H. v. D.H., 2019 ONCA 454 [Pepall......
-
Ontario Court Of Appeal Summaries (July 29 August 2, 2019)
...[1983] 1 SCR 124, R. v. Harbottle, [1993] 3 SCR 306, R. v. Magoon, 2018 SCC 14, R. v. Pritchard, 2008 SCC 59, R. v. Kimberley (2001), 157 C.C.C. (3d) 129, leave to appeal refused, [2002] SCCA No. 29; R. v. Smith, 2015 ONCA 831, 344 O.A.C. 22, R. v. Parris, 2013 ONCA 515, 300 C.C.C. (3d) 41,......
-
Court Of Appeal Summaries (July 3 6)
...Deborah Krick, for the respondent Keywords: Criminal Law, First Degree Murder, Criminal Code, S. 231(5)(e), Evidence, R v Kimberley(2001), 56 OR (3d) 18 The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your sp......
-
Table of cases
...176, 178 R v Khuc, 2000 BCCA 20 ................................................................................... 622 R v Kimberley (2001), 56 OR (3d) 18 (CA) ......................................... 157, 211, 212 R v Kiss, 2018 ONCA 184 ........................................................
-
Hearsay
...(3d) 14 (Ont CA) at 31–32 [ Folland ]; R v Post , 2007 BCCA 123, leave to appeal to SCC refused, [2007] SCCA No 207. 58 R v Kimberley (2001), 56 OR (3d) 18 (CA) at para 80 [ Kimberley ]. 59 Khelawon , above note 4 at paras 48–49. 60 For a discussion of the English law, see Hodge M Malek, Ph......
-
Digest: R v Pinacie-Littlechief, 2018 SKQB 56
...v Khelawon, 2006 SCC 57, [2006] 2 SCR 787, 355 NR 267, 274 DLR (4th) 385, 220 OAC 338, 215 CCC (3d) 161, 42 CR (6th) 1 R v Kimberley (2001), 157 CCC (3d) 129 R v Nataucappo, 2015 SKCA 28, [2015] 7 WWR 711, 322 CCC (3d) 69 R v Post, 2007 BCCA 123, 217 CCC (3d) 225 R v Rowbotham (1988), 25 OA......
-
Digest: R v Smith, 2018 SKCA 42
...213 Sask R 120, 159 CCC (3d) 421 R v D.W., [1991] 1 SCR 742, 122 NR 277, 46 OAC 352, 63 CCC (3d) 397, 3 CR (4th) 302 R v Kimberley (2001), 157 CCC (3d) 129 R v Moore, 2017 ONCA 947, 357 CCC (3d) 500 R v Peekeekoot, 2014 SKCA 97, 446 Sask R 22 R v Rafferty, 2016 ONCA 816, 33 CR (7th) 39 R v ......