R. v. Lee, 41 BCLR (2d) 273

• Judge: Dickson, C.J.C., Lamer, Wilson, La Forest, Sopinka, Gonthier and Cory, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: December 21, 1989
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: 41 BCLR (2d) 273;73 CR (3d) 257;[1990] 1 WWR 289;104 NR 1;[1989] 2 SCR 1384;9 WCB (2d) 234;52 CCC (3d) 289;45 CRR 80;JE 90-54;1989 CanLII 21 (SCC);(1989), 104 N.R. 1 (SCC);[1989] SCJ No 125 (QL)

R. v. Lee (1989), 104 N.R. 1 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Allen Harry Lee v. R. and The Attorney General for Ontario and The Attorney General for Quebec

(20235)

Indexed As: R. v. Lee

Supreme Court of Canada

Dickson, C.J.C., Lamer, Wilson, La Forest, Sopinka, Gonthier and Cory, JJ.

December 21, 1989.

Summary:

The accused was charged with trafficking in narcotics and in Provincial Court elected trial by jury. He failed to appear to set a trial date and an arrest warrant was issued, but held in abeyance. He appeared; the warrant was vacated and jury selection was set for three months later, but the accused failed to appear for it. He also failed to appear for trial. The British Columbia County Court ruled that he lost his right to trial by jury under s. 526.1 (now s. 598) of the Criminal Code because of his failure to appear. The judge ruled that s. 526.1 did not violate the accused's right to trial by jury under s. 11(f) of the Charter.

The accused was convicted by the British Columbia Supreme Court and appealed on the issue of the constitutionality of s. 526.1.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal in a judgment reported [1987] 2 W.W.R. 308; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 266; 55 C.R.(3d) 369; 9 B.C.L.R.(2d) 244; 30 C.R.R. 172, held that s. 526.1 did not violate s. 11(f) of the Charter. The accused appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal. Lamer, J., with Dickson, C.J.C., La Forest and Cory, JJ., concurring, held that s. 526.1 infringed the right to trial by jury granted by s. 11(f) of the Charter, but was justified as a reasonable limit under s. 1 of the Charter.

Gonthier, J., opined that s. 526.1 did not offend s. 11(f), because the accused by failing to attend his jury trial simply failed to exercise his right to a jury; he was not deprived of it.

Wilson, J., dissenting, with Sopinka, J., concurring, opined that s. 526.1 violated s. 11(f) of the Charter and was not saved by s. 1.

Civil Rights - Topic 3138

Trials, due process, fundamental jus tice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Right to jury - Loss of right upon failure to appear at trial - The Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 598, provided that an accused who fails to appear for his jury trial without excuse lost the right to be tried by a judge and jury - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 598 infringed the right to trial by jury granted by s. 11(f) of the Charter, but was justified as a reasonable limit under s. 1 of the Charter - The court held that the importance of the objective of preventing costs to individuals and society by the nonappearance of the accused at trial overrode the right to a jury - The court noted that the effect was limited to those who have already abused the system.

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3138 above].

Cases Noticed:

Re McNabb and R., [1987] 2 W.W.R. 308; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 266; 55 C.R.(3d) 369; 9 B.C.L.R.(2d) 244; 30 C.R.R. 172, consd. [paras. 20, 35].

R. v. Allan (1982), 2 C.R.R. 46 (Alta. Q.B.), consd. [paras. 23, 37].

R. v. Gladue (1982), 2 C.C.C.(3d) 175 (B.C.S.C.), consd. [paras. 23, 37].

R. v. Ramirez (1982), 9 W.C.B. 107 (Alta. Q.B.), consd. [para. 23].

R. v. Ryan (1986), 62 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 27; 190 A.P.R. 27 (Nfld. S.C.T.D.), consd. [paras. 23, 66].

R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 321; [1985] 3 W.W.R. 481; 85 C.L.L.C. 14023; 13 C.R.R. 64, appld. [para. 44].

R. v. Turpin, Siddiqui and Clauzel, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1296; 96 N.R. 115; 34 O.A.C. 115, consd. [para. 45].

R. v. Bryant (1984), 16 C.C.C.(3d) 408, consd. [para. 46].

Re Voisard and R., [1978] C.A. 168; 43 C.C.C.(2d) 570, consd. [para. 53].

R. v. Crate (1983), 57 A.R. 354; 7 C.C.C.(3d) 127, consd. [para. 66].

R. v. Korponay, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 41; 44 N.R. 103, consd. [para. 67].

R. v. Clarkson, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 383; 66 N.R. 114; 69 N.B.R.(2d) 40; 177 A.P.R. 40; 25 C.C.C.(3d) 207; 50 C.R.(3d) 289; 26 D.L.R.(4th) 493, consd. [para. 69].

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; 29 D.L.R.(4th) 161, consd. [para. 73].

R. v. Tremblay, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 435; 79 N.R. 153; 25 O.A.C. 93, consd. [para. 77].

R. v. Leclair and Ross, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 3; 91 N.R. 81; 31 O.A.C. 321, consd. [para. 77].

R. v. Tarrant (1984), 13 C.C.C.(3d) 219, consd. [para. 79].

R. v. Rogers, [1984] 6 W.W.R. 89; 34 Sask.R. 284, consd. [para. 80].

R. v. Czuczman (1986), 12 O.A.C. 231; 26 C.C.C.(3d) 43, consd. [para. 81].

R. v. Tzimopoulos (1986), 17 O.A.C. 1; 29 C.C.C.(3d) 304 (leave to appeal refused, [1987] 1 S.C.R. xv; 76 N.R. 80, consd. [para. 81].

R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 713; 71 N.R. 161; 19 O.A.C. 239; 30 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 55 C.R.(3d) 193; 14 D.L.R.(4th) 10, consd. [para. 85].

R. v. Edwards Books and Art Ltd. - see R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al. R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335; 50 C.R.(3d) 1; 24 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 26 D.L.R.(4th) 200, consd. [para. 85].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1 [paras. 1, 25, 29]; sect. 11(f) [paras. 1, 14, 29].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 145 [paras. 4, 6, 59]; sect. 471 [para. 58]; sect. 598 [paras. 1, 11, 28].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1897), vol. 4, p. 1735 [para. 95].

Counsel:

A.G. Henderson, A.C. Ward and E. Warren, for the appellant accused;

S.R. Fainstein, Q.C., and Cory Stolte, for the respondent Crown;

Paul S. Lindsay, for the intervener the Attorney General for Ontario;

Jacques Gauvin, for the intervener the Attorney General of Quebec.

Solicitors of Record:

Davis & Company, and Warren & Company, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the appellant;

John C. Tait, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent;

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

Attorney General of Quebec, Sainte-Foy, Quebec, for the intervener the Attorney General of Quebec.

This case was heard on March 22, 1989, at Ottawa, Ontario, before Dickson, C.J.C., Lamer, Wilson, La Forest, Sopinka, Gonthier and Cory, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On December 21, 1989, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official languages and the following opinions were filed:

Lamer, J. (Dickson, C.J.C., La Forest and Cory, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 8;

Gonthier, J. - see paragraphs 9 to 26;

Wilson, J., dissenting (Sopinka, J., concurring) - see paragraphs 27 to 97.