R. v. Lee (E.), (1996) 5 O.T.C. 321 (GD)

• Judge: Boyko, J.
• Court: Ontario Court of Justice General Division (Canada)
• Case Date: June 10, 1996
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1996), 5 O.T.C. 321 (GD)

R. v. Lee (E.) (1996), 5 O.T.C. 321 (GD)

MLB headnote and full text

Her Majesty The Queen v. Elvis Lee

(File No. 2688/95)

Indexed As: R. v. Lee (E.)

Ontario Court of Justice

General Division

Boyko, J.

June 10, 1996.

Summary:

The accused was allegedly involved in the break and enter of a home which lasted several hours and as a result was charged with numerous criminal offences. While detained at the police station, the accused made statements to police and participated in the making of a video taped image of himself. The accused argued that the statements and video tape should be excluded from evidence because of violations of his rights contrary to ss. 9 and 10 of the Charter. A voir dire was held to determine the admissibility of the evidence.

The Ontario Court (General Division) held that the accused was arbitrarily detained contrary to s. 9 of the Charter, there was a violation of his right to be informed of the reasons for his detention contrary to s. 10(a) and a breach of his right to retain and instruct counsel contrary to s. 10(b). The court therefore excluded the impugned evidence pursuant to s. 24 of the Charter.

Civil Rights - Topic 3603

Detention and imprisonment - Detention - What constitutes arbitrary detention - See paragraphs 42 to 91.

Civil Rights - Topic 3608

Detention and imprisonment - Detention - Right to be informed of reasons for - See paragraphs 98 to 150.

Civil Rights - Topic 4602

Right to counsel - Denial of - Evidence taken inadmissible - See paragraphs 151 to 176.

Civil Rights - Topic 4604

Right to counsel - Denial of or interference with - What constitutes - See paragraphs 92 to 97 and 123 to 150.

Civil Rights - Topic 4612

Right to counsel - Waiver or abandonment of - See paragraphs 133 to 150.

Civil Rights - Topic 4613

Right to counsel - Requirement of arrest or detention and notice of reasons for - See paragraphs 98 to 150.

Civil Rights - Topic 4615

Right to counsel - Instructing counsel - Right to privacy - See paragraphs 92 to 97.

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - See paragraphs 151 to 176.

Criminal Law - Topic 3212

Compelling appearance, detention and release - Arrest - Arrest without warrant - See paragraphs 49 to 65.

Criminal Law - Topic 3219

Compelling appearance, detention and release - Arrest - Appearance of accused before justice of peace - See paragraphs 86 to 91.

Criminal Law - Topic 5252.1

Evidence and witnesses - Identification - From video tape - See paragraphs 151 to 176.

Police - Topic 3063

Powers - Arrest and detention - Without warrant - Reasonable and probable grounds - See paragraphs 49 to 65.

Police - Topic 3068

Powers - Arrest and detention - Arrest without warrant - General - See paragraphs 49 to 65.

Police - Topic 3086

Powers - Arrest and detention - Detention for investigative purposes - See paragraphs 66 to 85.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Storrey, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 241; 105 N.R. 81; 37 O.A.C. 161; 53 C.C.C.(3d) 316, refd to. [para. 50].

Chartier v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1979] 2 S.C.R. 472; 27 N.R. 1; 9 C.R.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. Duguay, Murphy and Sevigny (1985), 8 O.A.C. 31; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 289 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 58].

R. v. Cayer et al. (1988), 28 O.A.C. 105; 66 C.R.(3d) 30 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 61].

R. v. Legree - see R. v. Cayer et al.

R. v. Dawson - see R. v. Cayer et al.

R. v. Boyer - see R. v. Cayer et al.

R. v. Hufsky, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 621; 84 N.R. 365; 27 O.A.C. 103; 40 C.C.C.(3d) 398; 63 C.R.(3d) 14; 4 M.V.R.(2d) 170; 32 C.R.R. 193, refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Williams (R.W.) (1992), 17 B.C.A.C. 38; 29 W.A.C. 38; 75 C.C.C.(3d) 525 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Simpson (R.) (1993), 60 O.A.C. 327; 79 C.C.C.(3d) 482 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 66].

R. v. Dedman, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 2; 60 N.R. 34; 11 O.A.C. 241; 46 C.R.(3d) 193; 20 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 34 M.V.R. 1, refd to. [para. 66].

R. v. Elshaw, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 24; 128 N.R. 241; 3 B.C.A.C. 81; 7 W.A.C. 81; 7 C.R.(4th) 333, refd to. [para. 66].

R. v. Wilson (J.W.), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1291; 108 N.R. 207; 107 A.R. 321; 56 C.C.C.(3d) 142, refd to. [para. 78].

R. v. Ladouceur, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1257; 108 N.R. 171; 40 O.A.C. 1; 77 C.R.(3d) 110; 56 C.C.C.(3d) 22; 21 M.V.R.(2d) 165, refd to. [para. 81].

R. v. Macooh, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 802; 155 N.R. 44; 141 A.R. 321; 46 W.A.C. 321; 82 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 82].

R. v. Chabot (G.A.) (1993), 126 N.S.R.(2d) 355; 352 A.P.R. 355; 86 C.C.C.(3d) 309 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 83].

R. v. Edwards (1994), 73 O.A.C. 55; 91 C.C.C.(3d) 123 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 84].

R. v. Adams and Waltz (1989), 33 O.A.C. 148; 49 C.C.C.(3d) 100 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 85].

R. v. Koszulap (1974), 20 C.C.C.(2d) 193 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 87].

R. v. Nakoneshny (1989), 73 Sask.R. 205; 47 C.C.C.(3d) 423 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 89].

R. v. Tam (R.K.N.) et al. (1995), 61 B.C.A.C. 40; 100 W.A.C. 40; 100 C.C.C.(3d) 196 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 90].

R. v. McKane (1987), 21 O.A.C. 73; 35 C.C.C.(3d) 481 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 95].

R. v. Playford (1987), 24 O.A.C. 161; 40 C.C.C.(3d) 142 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 96].

R. v. Borden (J.R.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 145; 171 N.R. 1; 134 N.S.R.(2d) 321; 383 A.P.R. 321; 92 C.C.C.(3d) 404, refd to. [para. 103].

R. v. Black, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 138; 98 N.R. 281; 93 N.S.R.(2d) 35; 242 A.P.R. 35; 50 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 105].

R. v. Smith (N.M.), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 714; 122 N.R. 203; 104 N.S.R.(2d) 233; 283 A.P.R. 233; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 313, refd to. [para. 109].

R. v. Evans, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 869; 124 N.R. 278; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 111].

R. v. O'Donnell (1991), 118 N.B.R.(2d) 91; 296 A.P.R. 91; 66 C.C.C.(3d) 56 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1991), 137 N.R. 391; 120 N.B.R.(2d) 90; 302 A.P.R. 90; 69 C.C.C.(3d) vi (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 115].

R. v. Power (E.) (1993), 105 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 271; 331 A.P.R. 271; 81 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 118].

R. v. Leclair and Ross, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 3; 91 N.R. 81; 31 O.A.C. 321; 46 C.C.C.(3d) 129; 67 C.R.(3d) 209; 37 C.R.R. 369, refd to. [para. 130].

R. v. Manninen (1983), 1 O.A.C. 199; 8 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 136].

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. 137].

R. v. Prosper (1994), 172 N.R. 161; 133 N.S.R.(2d) 321; 380 A.P.R. 321; 92 C.C.C.(3d) 353 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 138].

R. v. Wills (1992), 52 O.A.C. 321; 70 C.C.C.(3d) 529 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 139].

R. v. Purdon (1989), 100 A.R. 313; 52 C.C.C.(3d) 270 (C.A.), dist. [para. 146].

R. v. Legere (1988), 89 N.B.R.(2d) 361; 226 A.P.R. 361; 43 C.C.C.(3d) 502 (C.A.), dist. [para. 148].

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; 13 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1; 28 C.R.R. 122, refd to. [para. 161].

R. v. Burlingham (T.W.), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 206; 181 N.R. 1; 58 B.C.A.C. 161; 96 W.A.C. 161; 97 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 124 D.L.R.(4th) 7, refd to. [para. 166].

R. v. Sanchez-Flores (1992), 57 O.A.C. 161; 75 C.C.C.(3d) 23 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 168].

R. v. Manninen, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1233; 76 N.R. 198; 21 O.A.C. 192; 58 C.R.(3d) 97; 34 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 41 D.L.R.(4th) 301, refd to. [para. 169].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 9 [para. 48]; sect. 10(a), sect. 10(b) [para. 1 et seq.]; sect. 24(2) [para. 157].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 494, sect. 495 [para. 49]; sect. 503(1)(a) [para. 86].

Counsel:

J. McKeachie, for the Crown;

L. Kinahan and A. Jakubowska, for the defence.

This voir dire was held before Boyko, J., of the Ontario Court (General Division), who released the following ruling on June 10, 1996.