R. v. McGuffie (P.F.)

• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Judge: Doherty, Simmons and van Rensburg, JJ.A.
• Neutral Citation: 2016 ONCA 365
• Citation: 2016 ONCA 365,(2016), 348 O.A.C. 365 (CA),131 OR (3d) 643,[2016] OJ No 2504 (QL),348 OAC 365,[2016] O.J. No 2504 (QL),348 O.A.C. 365,131 O.R. (3d) 643,(2016), 348 OAC 365 (CA)
• Date: 18 March 2016
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)

R. v. McGuffie (P.F.) (2016), 348 O.A.C. 365 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2016] O.A.C. TBEd. MY.006

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Philippe Fred McGuffie (appellant)

(C57466; 2016 ONCA 365)

Indexed As: R. v. McGuffie (P.F.)

Ontario Court of Appeal

Doherty, Simmons and van Rensburg, JJ.A.

May 13, 2016.

Summary:

The accused was convicted of two counts of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, three counts of breaching a condition of his recognizance and one count of breaching a probation order. While his factual guilt on the charges for which he was convicted was never in doubt, he argued, however, that the police obtained the evidence relied on to establish his guilt in a manner that breached his rights under the Charter. He sought to exclude the evidence pursuant to s. 24(2) of the Charter. The trial judge found several breaches of the accused's ss. 8, 9 and 10 Charter rights, but declined to exclude the evidence. The accused appealed the Charter ruling.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. The trial judge made three legal errors in his s. 24(2) analysis (i.e., he treated the absence of evidence of systemic institutional non-compliance with the requirements of the Charter as mitigating the seriousness of the police misconduct, he failed to give any consideration to the impact of the several Charter breaches on the constitutionally protected interests of the accused and he treated the seriousness of the drug charges as the paramount and overriding consideration). The court held that on a proper s. 24(2) analysis, the evidence should have been excluded. In the result, the court quashed the convictions and entered acquittals.

Civil Rights - Topic 1214

Security of the person - Lawful or reasonable search - Searches incidental to arrest or detention - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 8368 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 1216

Security of the person - Lawful or reasonable search - Strip searches - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 8368 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 1217

Security of the person - Lawful or reasonable search - What constitutes unreasonable search and seizure - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 8368 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 1410.2

Security of the person - Law enforcement - Investigation - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 8368 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 3603

Detention and imprisonment - Detention - What constitutes arbitrary detention - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 8368 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 4604

Right to counsel - General - Denial of or interference with - What constitutes - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 8368 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 4608

Right to counsel - General - Right to be advised of - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 8368 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - The accused was convicted of two counts of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, three counts of breaching a condition of his recognizance and one count of breaching a probation order - He appealed, claiming that his Charter rights were breached and the evidence should have been excluded - The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal - The court noted that the accused's s. 9 Charter rights were breached when the accused, who was detained for investigative purposes, was handcuffed and confined in a police vehicle while the officer pursued his investigation elsewhere - The police failed to comply with virtually all of their s. 10(b) obligations regarding his right to counsel, during which time the police conducted two intrusive unconstitutional searches - Also, the manner in which the police strip searched the accused violated s. 8 of the Charter - The court held that, in the circumstances, on a proper analysis under s. 24(2) of the Charter, the evidence obtained should be excluded and the accused acquitted - See paragraphs 31 to 85.

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - The accused was convicted of two counts of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, three counts of breaching a condition of his recognizance and one count of breaching a probation order - The trial judge found that the police had violated the accused's ss. 8, 9 and 10 Charter rights, but declined to exclude the evidence - The accused appealed - The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal - The trial judge made three legal errors in his s. 24(2) analysis (i.e., he treated the absence of evidence of systemic institutional non-compliance with the requirements of the Charter as mitigating the seriousness of the police misconduct, he failed to give any consideration to the impact of the several Charter breaches on the constitutionally protected interests of the accused and he treated the seriousness of the drug charges as the paramount and overriding consideration) - The court held that on a proper s. 24(2) analysis, the evidence should have been excluded - In the result, the court quashed the convictions and entered acquittals - See paragraphs 59 to 85.

Police - Topic 3086

Powers - Arrest and detention - Detention for investigative purposes - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 8368 ].

Police - Topic 3185

Powers - Search - Following arrest or detention - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 8368 ].

Counsel:

Howard L. Krongold, for the appellant;

James D. Sutton, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on March 18, 2016, before Doherty, Simmons and van Rensburg, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The following decision was released for the court on May 13, 2016, by Doherty, J.A.