R. v. Lising (R.) et al., (2004) 193 B.C.A.C. 42 (CA)

• Judge: Finch, C.J.B.C., Southin and Newbury, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: January 22, 2004
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (2004), 193 B.C.A.C. 42 (CA);2004 BCCA 33

R. v. Lising (R.) (2004), 193 B.C.A.C. 42 (CA);

    316 W.A.C. 42

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] B.C.A.C. TBEd. JA.068

Regina (respondent) v. Francisco Batista Pires (appellant)

(CA028747)

Regina (respondent) v. Ronaldo Lising (appellant)

(CA028748)

(2004 BCCA 33)

Indexed As: R. v. Lising (R.) et al.

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Finch, C.J.B.C., Southin and Newbury, JJ.A.

January 22, 2004.

Summary:

The two accused were charged in a seven-count indictment. They were jointly charged with conspiracy to traffic in cocaine (count 1); trafficking in cocaine and possession of the proceeds of trafficking in cocaine (counts 2 and 3); and trafficking in cocaine and possession of the proceeds of such traf­ficking (counts 4 and 5). The accused Lising was charged alone with possession of cocaine and the drug "Ecstasy" for purposes of trafficking (counts 6 and 7). During the jury trial, both accused applied for severance of count 1 from the substantive counts of trafficking in cocaine and possession of the proceeds of trafficking. Lising also applied for severance of counts 6 and 7 from the others. The accused also applied for a mis­trial.

The British Columbia Supreme Court dismissed the application for severance. The Supreme Court, in a decision reported at [2000] B.C.T.C. Uned. 663, also dismissed the application for a mistrial.

Both accused were convicted on counts 1, 4 and 5 and acquitted on counts 2 and 3. Lising was acquitted on counts 6 and 7, but convicted of the included offence of simple possession of cocaine and "Ecstasy". The accused appealed their convictions.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals.

Criminal Law - Topic 4633

Procedure - Mistrials - Grounds - Jury tainting - The accused were charged with drug offences - About two weeks into the trial, defence counsel became aware that when the jury were being empanelled, they may have heard a remark to the effect that the accused were members of "Hell's Angels" - All counsel and the trial judge had previously agreed that references to Hell's Angels would be avoided and witnesses were instructed accordingly - The trial judge refused a mistrial because there was no evidence that any member of the jury heard the comment - Even if they had, any prejudice would be cleansed by a warning to the jury to disregard anything heard out-of-court - The British Colum­bia Court of Appeal found no error - See paragraphs 44 to 59, 86.

Criminal Law - Topic 4737.1

Procedure - Information or indictment - Charge or count - Indictable offences - Severing counts in an indictment - Pires and Lising were charged with drug of­fences - They applied to sever count 1 (conspiracy to traffic) from the substantive counts of trafficking in cocaine and pos­session of the proceeds of trafficking - Lising was charged alone with possession of cocaine and "Ecstasy" for purposes of trafficking (counts 6 and 7); he sought to sever these from the others - The British Columbia Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal of the applications - Severing count 1 would not make the trial shorter and less complex - There was a factual and legal nexus between counts 6 and 7 and the others - A careful charge could prevent any risk of improper use of evi­dence respecting one count to the others - See paragraphs 60 to 68, 86.

Criminal Law - Topic 5274.3

Evidence - Witnesses - Interception of private communications - Application for -Affidavit - Cross-examination of depo­nent - Police obtained an authorization under the Criminal Code, s. 184.2, to wiretap the conversations of two accused, with the consent of the other participant, a police informant - The British Columbia Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of any cross-examination by the accused of the deponent or informant during a voir dire - The trial judge had a discretion to permit such cross-examination only where a reasonable likelihood was shown that it would provide evidence that one of the pre-conditions to the granting of the au­thorization was not met - Here, a "mislead­ing" statement by the deponent in his affidavit did not go to the foundation of the authorization - See paragraphs 17 to 43, 70 to 78, 84 to 85, 89 to 98.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Garofoli et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1421; 116 N.R. 241; 43 O.A.C. 1; 36 Q.A.C. 161; 60 C.C.C.(3d) 161; 80 C.R.(3d) 317, appld. [paras. 1, 71, 91].

R. v. Kutynec (1992), 52 O.A.C. 59; 70 C.C.C.(3d) 289 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. Feldman (A.F.) (1994), 42 B.C.A.C. 31; 67 W.A.C. 31; 91 C.C.C.(3d) 256 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. Vukelich (M.) (1996), 78 B.C.A.C. 113; 128 W.A.C. 113; 108 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 2, 78].

R. v. Monroe (D.T.) (1997), 90 B.C.A.C. 256; 147 W.A.C. 256; 8 C.R.(5th) 324 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. Bisson (J.) et autres (1994), 60 Q.A.C. 173; 87 C.C.C.(3d) 440 (C.A.), affd. [1994] 3 S.C.R. 1097; 173 N.R. 237; 65 Q.A.C. 241, refd to. [paras. 2, 85].

R. v. Araujo (A.) et al. (1998), 109 B.C.A.C. 131; 177 W.A.C. 131; 127 C.C.C.(3d) 315 (C.A.), affd. [2000] 2 S.C.R. 992; 262 N.R. 346; 143 B.C.A.C. 257; 235 W.A.C. 257, refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. Bordage (2000), 146 C.C.C.(3d) 549 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Hiscock (G.); R. v. Sauvé (P.) (1992), 46 Q.A.C. 263; 72 C.C.C.(3d) 303 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Durette et al. (1992), 54 O.A.C. 81; 72 C.C.C.(3d) 421 (C.A.), revd. [1994] 1 S.C.R. 469; 163 N.R. 321; 70 O.A.C. 1; 88 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Barzal (M.D.) et al. (1993), 33 B.C.A.C. 161; 54 W.A.C. 161; 84 C.C.C.(3d) 289 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

Peggy Sage Inc. v. Siegel Kahn Co., [1935] S.C.R. 539, refd to. [para. 23].

Hudson's Bay Co. v. Beaumark Mirror Products Inc. (1987), 13 C.I.P.R. 86 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Hill (1976), 33 C.C.C.(2d) 60 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Froese (1980), 54 C.C.C.(2d) 315 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Buhay (M.A.) (2003), 305 N.R. 158; 177 Man.R.(2d) 72; 304 W.A.C. 72; 2003 SCC 30, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Greffe, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 755; 107 N.R. 1; 107 A.R. 1, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. National Post et al., [2002] O.T.C. 961; 101 C.R.R.(2d) 158 (Sup. Ct.), disagreed with [paras. 35, 77].

Franks v. Delaware (1978), 428 U.S. 154, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Parmar (1987), 37 C.C.C.(3d) 300 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Williams (V.D.) (1996), 75 B.C.A.C. 135; 123 W.A.C. 135; 106 C.C.C.(3d) 215; 48 C.R.(4th) 97 (C.A.), revd. [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1128; 226 N.R. 162; 107 B.C.A.C. 1; 174 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 51].

R. v. Latimer (R.W.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 217; 207 N.R. 215; 152 Sask.R. 1; 140 W.A.C. 1; 112 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. Sussex Justices, [1924] 1 K.B. 256, refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. Hanna (K.D.) (1993), 27 B.C.A.C. 42; 45 W.A.C. 42; 80 C.C.C.(3d) 289 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. Lawson (1991), 1 B.C.A.C. 204; 1 W.A.C. 204 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. Paterson (D.R.) (1998), 102 B.C.A.C. 200; 166 W.A.C. 200; 122 C.C.C.(3d) 254 (C.A.), consd. [para. 54].

R. v. R. (1994), 74 O.A.C. 363; 94 C.C.C.(3d) 168 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. A.J.R. - see R. v. R.

R. v. Khan (M.A.), [2001] 3 S.C.R. 823; 279 N.R. 79; 160 Man.R.(2d) 161; 262 W.A.C. 161, appld. [para. 56].

R. v. Kelly, [1967] 1 C.C.C. 215 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Luberg (1925), 19 Cr. App. R. 133, refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Creighton (D.J.) and Crawford (C.), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 858; 179 N.R. 161; 81 O.A.C. 359, refd to. [para. 63].

R. v. Crawford (C.) - see R. v. Creighton (D.J.) and Crawford (C.).

R. v. McFall, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 321; 27 N.R. 420; 48 C.C.C.(2d) 225, refd to. [para. 63].

R. v. Cuthbert (D.A.) (1996), 72 B.C.A.C. 227; 119 W.A.C. 227; 106 C.C.C.(3d) 28 (C.A.), affd. [1997] 1 S.C.R. 8; 208 N.R. 303; 86 B.C.A.C. 81; 142 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 65].

R. v. Carroll (C.M.) et al. (1999), 118 B.C.A.C. 219; 192 W.A.C. 219 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 67].

R. v. Mapara (S.) et al. (2003), 179 B.C.A.C. 92; 295 W.A.C. 92; 2003 BCCA 131, refd to. [para. 67].

Counsel:

K.S. Westlake, for the appellant, Francisco B. Pires;

G.P. DelBigio, for the appellant, Ronaldo Lising;

C. Stolte and E.W. Froess, for the respon­dent.

This apeal was heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on October 23-24, 2003, by Finch, C.J.B.C., Southin and Newbury, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Apeal. The decision of the court was delivered on Jan­uary 22, 2004, when the following opinions were filed:

Newbury, J.A. - see paragraphs 1 to 69;

Finch, C.J.B.C. - see paragraphs 70 to 86;

Southin, J.A. - see paragraphs 87 to 98.