R. v. Koh (S.T.), (1998) 116 O.A.C. 244 (CA)

• Judge: Finlayson, Laskin and Rosenberg, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: December 30, 1998
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1998), 116 O.A.C. 244 (CA)

R. v. Koh (S.T.) (1998), 116 O.A.C. 244 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] O.A.C. TBEd. FE.002

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Siew Thiam Koh, Eng Chuan Lu and Buan Huat Lim

(appellants)

Indexed As: R. v. Koh (S.T.) et al.

Ontario Court of Appeal

Finlayson, Laskin and Rosenberg, JJ.A.

December 30, 1998.

Summary:

A court composed of a judge and jury, sitting in Toronto, convicted the three Chi­nese accused of conspiracy to import a narcotic (heroin) into Canada, conspiracy to traffic in a narcotic and possession of a narcotic for the purpose of trafficking. The accused all received life sentences for one or more of the counts and fixed term sentences on the remainder of the counts. They appealed. At issue was the refusal of the trial judge to permit a question to prospective jurors on a challenge for cause respecting the racial and national origin of all the appel­lants.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.

Civil Rights - Topic 5653.4

Equality and protection of the law - Par­ticular cases - Criminal law - Jury selec­tion - [See second Criminal Law - Topic 4312 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4312

Procedure - Jury - General - Impartiality - Section 638(1)(b) of the Criminal Code permitted an accused to challenge potential jurors for cause on the ground of partiality - The Ontario Court of Appeal discussed the test to be applied when deciding on the challenge - See paragraphs 9 to 18.

Criminal Law - Topic 4312

Procedure - Jury - General - Impartiality - Three Chinese accused found guilty at a trial conducted in Toronto argued on appeal that the trial judge had erroneously refused to permit a question to prospective jurors on a challenge for cause respecting the accused's racial and national origin - The Crown contested arguing absence of evidentiary foundation for a challenge for cause - The Ontario Court of Appeal al­lowed the appeal - The court saw no com­pelling reason why all accused who were members of visible minorities should not have a right to challenge prospective jurors for cause where: (1) racism against the Chinese in Toronto was sufficiently present to raise serious concerns; (2) ra­cism could well be amenable to judicial notice; and (3) alternatively, a prima facie case could be established by a visible minority mem­ber accused by merely re­questing the right to make the challenge given the successive holdings in Parks, Wilson, Ho and Wil­liams respecting ra­cism - See paragraphs 19 to 44.

Criminal Law - Topic 4316

Procedure - Jury - General - Challenges for cause - [See second Criminal Law - Topic 4312 ].

Evidence - Topic 2300

Special modes of proof - Judicial notice - Particular matters - Racism - [See second Criminal Law - Topic 4312 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Parks (C.) (1993), 65 O.A.C. 122; 84 C.C.C.(3d) 353 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1994] 1 S.C.R. x; 175 N.R. 321; 72 O.A.C. 159; 28 C.R.(4th) 403; 87 C.C.C.(3d) vi, consd. [para. 9].

R. v. Willis (1994), 90 C.C.C.(3d) 350 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Sherratt, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 509; 122 N.R. 241; 73 Man.R.(2d) 161; 3 W.A.C. 161; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 193, consd. [para. 10].

R. v. Williams (V.D.) (1998), 226 N.R. 162; 107 B.C.A.C. 1; 174 W.A.C. 1; 124 C.C.C.(3d) 481 (S.C.C.), folld. [para. 13].

Willick v. Willick, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 670; 173 N.R. 321; 125 Sask.R. 81; 81 W.A.C. 81; 119 D.L.R.(4th) 405, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Francis (R.) (1996), 92 O.A.C. 308 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

Cronk v. Canadian General Insurance Co. (1995), 85 O.A.C. 54; 25 O.R.(3d) 505 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Potts (1982), 66 C.C.C.(2d) 219 (Ont. C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1982), 43 N.R. 270 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Wilson (R.) (1995), 90 O.A.C. 386; 107 C.C.C.(3d) 86 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Glasgow (M.) (1996), 93 O.A.C. 67; 110 C.C.C.(3d) 57 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. R.D.S., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 484; 218 N.R. 1; 161 N.S.R.(2d) 241; 477 A.P.R. 241; 118 C.C.C.(3d) 353, consd. [para. 39].

Committee for Justice and Liberty Foun­dation et al. v. National Energy Board et al., [1978] 1 S.C.R. 369; 9 N.R. 115; 68 D.L.R.(3d) 716, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Hubbert (1975), 29 C.C.C.(2d) 279 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 42].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Sopinka, John, Lederman, Sydney N., and Bryant, Alan W., The Law of Evidence in Canada (1992), p. 976 [para. 37].

Counsel:

James C. Fleming, for the appellant, Koh;

P. Andras Schreck, for the appellant, Lim;

Peter J. Connelly, for the appellant, Lu;

Robert Frater, for the respondent;

Lillian Y. Pan and Avvy Go, for the intervenor, Chinese Canadian National Council.

This appeal was heard on November 9 and 10, 1998, by Finlayson, Laskin and Rosen­berg, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal.

The decision of the Court of Appeal was released on December 30, 1998, by Finlay­son, J.A.