R. v. Pan (R.W.), (1999) 120 O.A.C. 1 (CA)

• Judge: McMurtry, C.J.O., Finlayson, Osborne, Labrosse and Charron, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: Tuesday April 13, 1999
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1999), 120 O.A.C. 1 (CA)

R. v. Pan (R.W.) (1999), 120 O.A.C. 1 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] O.A.C. TBEd. AP.043

Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) v. Rui Wen Pan (appellant)

(C13175)

Indexed As: R. v. Pan (R.W.)

Ontario Court of Appeal

McMurtry, C.J.O., Finlayson, Osborne, Labrosse and Charron, JJ.A.

April 13, 1999.

Summary:

The accused was charged with first degree murder. The accused's first two trials were declared mistrials. The Attorney General decided to proceed with a third trial. The accused applied for a stay of proceedings and challenged the constitutional validity of s. 649 (the jury secrecy provisions) of the Cri­minal Code. The accused sought to call some, or all, of the 12 persons who sat as jurors at his second trial as witnesses on his stay application.

The Ontario Court (General Division), per Watt, J., in a threshold ruling held that s. 649 and the common law jury secrecy rule were constitutionally valid. He added that the evidence proposed to be elicited from the jurors could not be admitted. Subsequently, Watt, J., after hearing the merits of the application, refused to grant a stay of pro­ceedings. The third trial ensued and the accused was convicted of first degree mur­der. The accused appealed.

On appeal, the accused sought to introduce fresh evidence of matters relating to the jury deliberations in his second trial to demon­strate that the trial judge erred in declaring a mistrial. This request again raised the issue of the constitutional validity of the common law and Criminal Code provision governing the admissibility of evidence relating to jury deliberations. The accused also argued that Watt, J., erred in not granting a stay of proceedings because the trial judge at the second trial erred in declaring a mistrial where the jury had in fact reached a verdict and it was an abuse of process to proceed with a third trial against the accused con­sidering that his first two trials had ended in successive mistrials.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 3146.1

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Jury secrecy - [See both Criminal Law - Topic 4306.1].

Civil Rights - Topic 4620.1

Right to counsel - Right to effective as­sistance by counsel - The accused appealed his first degree murder convic­tion, arguing that he did not receive effec­tive assistance of counsel - The Ontario Court of Appeal rejected this ground of appeal - The court discussed what must be proved to establish when assistance by counsel has been inef­fective - See para­graphs 249 to 254.

Criminal Law - Topic 253

Abuse of process - What constitutes - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4633].

Criminal Law - Topic 4306.1

Procedure - Jury - Disclosure of jury pro­ceedings - The accused's first two murder trials were declared mistrials - The accused sought a stay of a third trial, chal­lenging the constitutional validity of the jury secrecy rule (Criminal Code, s. 649 and the com­mon law) - The accused wanted to call jury members from his second trial as witnesses on his stay appli­cation - The motions judge rejected the constitutional challenge and held that no evidence from jurors could be admitted - The stay of proceedings was refused - The third trial ensued and the accused was convicted of first degree murder - The accused appealed again challenging the jury secrecy rules under ss. 7, 11(d) and 11(f) of the Charter and seeking to admit evidence from the jury members from the second trial as fresh evidence - The Ontario Court of Appeal agreed that the common law rule of exclusion and s. 649 were constitu­tion­ally sound and refused to admit the fresh evidence - See paragraphs 87 to 210.

Criminal Law - Topic 4306.1

Procedure - Jury - Disclosure of jury pro­ceedings - The Ontario Court of Appeal reviewed the history, nature and scope of the jury secrecy rule at common law - See paragraphs 127 to 192.

Criminal Law - Topic 4351

Procedure - Jury charge - Directions re­garding burden of proof and reasonable doubt - The accused appealed his first degree murder conviction, arguing that the jury charge on the issue of reasonable doubt was inadequate - The Ontario Court of Appeal examined the charge and deter­mined that it was adequate - See para­graphs 255 to 268.

Criminal Law - Topic 4352

Procedure - Jury charge - Direction on evidence generally - The accused appealed his first degree murder conviction, arguing that the trial judge did not accurately and fully summarize the accused's evidence or point out to the jury important evidence that supported the case for the defence - The accused argued further that the trial judge failed to correct some misstatements of the evidence in the Crown's jury ad­dress - The Ontario Court of Appeal re­jected this ground of appeal - The court noted that the trial judge expansively and in a balanced way reviewed the positions of the Crown and the defence - He also reviewed the evidence that was relevant to those positions and to the real issues in the trial - See paragraphs 284 to 289.

Criminal Law - Topic 4357

Procedure - Jury charge - Directions re­garding defences and theory of the defence - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4352].

Criminal Law - Topic 4358

Procedure - Jury charge - Directions re­garding circumstantial evidence - The accused appealed his first degree murder conviction, arguing that the jury charge respecting circumstantial evidence was inadequate - The Ontario Court of Appeal examined the charge and determined that it was adequate - See paragraphs 269 to 272.

Criminal Law - Topic 4369.1

Procedure - Jury charge - Directions re opportunity - The accused appealed his first degree murder conviction, arguing that the jury charge respecting opportunity was inadequate - The Ontario Court of Appeal examined the charge and determined that it was adequate - See paragraphs 273 to 275.

Criminal Law - Topic 4375.2

Procedure - Jury charge - Directions re­garding prior inconsistent statements - The accused appealed his first degree murder conviction - The accused argued that the trial judge's instruction respecting the use of prior inconsistent statements was correct at the time of trial - However, the accused submitted that in light of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R v. K.G.B., which was released after the trial judge charged the jury in this case, he should be able to rely on six prior inconsistent state­ments of witnesses as substantive evidence, not just evidence going to the issue of the witnesses' credibility - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that even if the prior in­consistent statements in issue were admit­ted as substantive under K.G.B., they could not have reasonably affected the verdict - See paragraphs 276 to 283.

Criminal Law - Topic 4440

Procedure - Verdicts - Discharges and dismissals - Directed verdicts - At a first degree murder trial, the accused moved for a directed verdict - The trial judge dis­missed the motion - The accused appealed, arguing that the trial judge erred in dis­missing the motion for a directed verdict and that the jury's verdict was unreason­able - The Ontario Court of Appeal dis­missed the appeal - The court stated that when all of the circumstantial evidence presented by the Crown was taken into account, it provided an ample basis upon which the jury could reasonably conclude that the murder was planned and deliberate - See paragraphs 241 to 248.

Criminal Law - Topic 4447

Procedure - Verdicts - Jury - Finality - Admission of evidence of jurors - [See both Criminal Law - Topic 4306.1].

Criminal Law - Topic 4486

Procedure - Trial - Stay of proceedings - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4633].

Criminal Law - Topic 4631

Procedure - Mistrials - General - The Ontario Court of Appeal reviewed the discretion of a trial judge to order a mis­trial - See paragraphs 224 to 232.

Criminal Law - Topic 4633

Procedure - Mistrials - Grounds - The accused's first two murder trials were declared mistrials - The accused sought a stay of a third trial, challenging the consti­tu­tional validity of the jury secrecy rule - The motions judge rejected the constitu­tional challenge and the stay of proceed­ings was refused - The third trial ensued and the accused was convicted of first degree murder - The accused appealed, arguing that the motions judge ought to have granted a stay of proceedings because the trial judge at the second trial erred in declaring a mistrial where the jury had reached a verdict - Further, it was an abuse of process to proceed with a third trial against the accused given the two earlier mistrials - The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the motions judge made no error in refus­ing the stay of proceedings - See para­graphs 211 to 239.

Criminal Law - Topic 4865

Appeals - Indictable offences - Grounds of appeal - Verdict unreasonable or un­sup­ported by evidence - [See Criminal Law -Topic 4440].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Henderson (R.R.) (1999), 120 O.A.C. 99 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 5, 303].

R. v. Sawyer (B.) and Galbraith (T.) (1999), 120 O.A.C. 114 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 5, 303].

R. v. Galbraith; R. v. Sawyer - see R. v. Sawyer.

Dolphin Delivery Ltd. v. Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 580, Peterson and Alexander, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 573; 71 N.R. 83; 33 D.L.R.(4th) 174; 38 C.C.L.T. 184; 25 C.R.R. 321; [1987] 1 W.W.R. 577; 87 C.L.L.C. 14,002, refd to. [para. 88, footnote 7].

R. v. O'Brien (1977), 35 C.C.C.(2d) 209 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 102].

R. v. Farinacci (L.W.) et al. (1993), 67 O.A.C. 197; 86 C.C.C.(3d) 32 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 123].

Vaise v. Delaval (1785), 99 E.R. 949; 1 Term. Rep. 11 (K.B.), refd to. [paras. 129, 313].

Danis v. Saumure (1956), 3 D.L.R.(2d) 221 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 130].

Matthews and Ford, Re, [1973] V.R. 199 (Vic. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 133, foot­note 11].

R. v. Mercier (1973), 12 C.C.C.(2d) 377 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [paras. 133, 347, foot­note 12].

R. v. Lessard, Michaud et Pelletier (1992), 49 Q.A.C. 119; 74 C.C.C.(3d) 552 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 137].

R. v. Hertrich, Stewart and Skinner (1982), 67 C.C.C.(2d) 510 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [paras. 138, 365].

R. v. Cameron (1991), 44 O.A.C. 278; 64 C.C.C.(3d) 96 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 138].

R. v. Taillefer (1995), 100 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 138].

R. v. Martineau (1986), 33 C.C.C.(3d) 573 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 138].

R. v. MacKay (1980), 53 C.C.C.(2d) 366 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 138].

R. v. Sophonow (1986), 38 Man.R.(2d) 198; 25 C.C.C.(3d) 415 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 138].

R. v. Zacharias (1987), 39 C.C.C.(3d) 280 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [paras. 141, 368, footnote 14].

R. v. Tavarivas, [1993] B.C.J. No. 2820 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 141, footnote 15].

R. v. Thatcher (1986), 46 Sask.R. 241; 24 C.C.C.(3d) 449 (C.A.), affd. [1987] 1 S.C.R. 657; 75 N.R. 198; 57 Sask.R. 113; 32 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 141, footnote 16].

R. v. Armstrong, [1922] 2 K.B. 555 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 142, footnote 17].

R. v. Chionye (1989), 89 Cr. App. R. 285 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 144].

R. v. Sachs, [1991] O.J. No. 1645 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 149, footnote 18].

R. v. Challinger, [1989] 2 Qd. R. 352 (C.C. Aust.), refd to. [para. 149, footnote 18].

R. v. Papadopoulos, [1979] 1 N.Z.L.R. 318 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 149, footnote 18].

Donovan's Application, In Re, [1957] V.R. 333 (Vic. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 149, footnote 18].

R. v. Box (1963), 47 Cr. App. R. 284 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 150].

R. v. Putnam, Lyons and Taylor (1991), 93 Cr. App. R. 281 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 151].

R. v. Hood, [1968] 2 All E.R. 56; 52 Cr. App. R. 265 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 152, 319].

R. v. Gough (R.B.) (1993), 155 N.R. 81; 97 Cr. App. R. 188 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 152, footnote 19].

R. v. Ryan (1951), Crim. Rep. Vol. 13, p. 363; 13 C.R. 363 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [paras. 154, 365].

R. v. Nash (1949), 94 C.C.C. 288 (N.B.C.A.), refd to. [para. 155].

R. v. Gilson (1965), 4 C.C.C. 61 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 156].

R. v. Thompson, [1962] 1 All E.R. 65; 46 Cr. App. R. 72 (C.C.A.), refd to. [paras. 157, 319].

R. v. Armstrong (1922), 16 Cr. App. R. 149, refd to. [para. 157].

Wilson v. R. (1993), 85 Man.R.(2d) 250; 41 W.A.C. 250; 78 C.C.C.(3d) 568 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 159, 319].

R. v. Barnes (1907), 13 C.C.C. 301 (N.S.C.A.), refd to. [para. 160].

R. v. Gumbly (D.) (1996), 155 N.S.R.(2d) 117; 457 A.P.R. 117; 112 C.C.C.(3d) 61 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 160, 342, footnote 20].

Clark v. United States (1933), 289 U.S. 1, refd to. [para. 164, footnote 21].

Attorney General v. Associated News­pa­pers Ltd., [1993] 2 All E.R. 535 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 165, footnote 22].

R. v. Parks (1993), 65 O.A.C. 122; 15 O.R.(3d) 324; 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; 87 C.C.C.(3d) vi, refd to. [paras. 171, 364].

R. v. Corbett, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 670; 85 N.R. 81; 41 C.C.C.(3d) 385, refd to. [para. 173].

R. v. O'Connor (H.P.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 411; 191 N.R. 1; 68 B.C.A.C. 1; 112 W.A.C. 1; [1996] 2 W.W.R. 153; 130 D.L.R.(4th) 235; 103 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 44 C.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 181, footnote 24].

Reference Re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266; 48 C.R.(3d) 289; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 289; [1986] 1 W.W.R. 481, refd to. [paras. 183, 372, footnote 26].

R. v. Swain, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 933; 125 N.R. 1; 47 O.A.C. 81; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 183, footnote 27].

R. v. Lyons, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 309; 80 N.R. 161; 82 N.S.R.(2d) 271; 207 A.P.R. 271; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [paras. 183, 399, footnote 28].

R. v. Beare; R. v. Higgins, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 387; 88 N.R. 205; 71 Sask.R. 1; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 57; [1989] 1 W.W.R. 97; 66 C.R.(3d) 97, refd to. [paras. 183, 399, foot­note 29].

Thomson Newspapers Ltd. v. Director of Investigation and Research, Combines Investigation Act et al., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 425; 106 N.R. 161; 39 O.A.C. 161; 54 C.C.C.(3d) 417; 76 C.R.(3d) 129; 67 D.L.R.(4th) 161; 29 C.P.R.(3d) 97; 47 C.R.R. 1, refd to. [paras. 183, 399, foot­note 30].

Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General) et al., [1993] 3 S.C.R. 519; 158 N.R. 1; 34 B.C.A.C. 1; 56 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [paras. 183, 382, footnote 31].

Godbout v. Longueuil (Ville) [1997] 3 S.C.R. 844; 219 N.R. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 185].

R. v. Perras (1974), 18 C.C.C.(2d) 47 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [paras. 190, 340, foot­note 33].

R. v. Bean (1991), C.L.R. 843 (Eng. C.A.), refd to. [para. 190, footnote 33].

R. v. Dobson (1987), 22 O.A.C. 119; 38 C.C.C.(3d) 434 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 225].

R. v. T.C.D. - see R. v. Dobson.

R. v. Laforet, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 869; 30 N.R. 361, refd to. [para. 226].

R. v. Bryan (1971), 1 C.C.C.(2d) 342, refd to. [para. 228].

R. v. Jack (B.G.) (1997) 214 N.R. 294; 118 Man.R.(2d) 168; 149 W.A.C. 168; 117 C.C.C.(3d) 43 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 229].

R. v. Power (E.), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 601; 165 N.R. 241; 117 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 269; 365 A.P.R. 269; 89 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 29 C.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 234].

R. v. Conway, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1659; 96 N.R. 241; 34 O.A.C. 165, refd to. [para. 234].

R. v. Keyowski, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 657; 83 N.R. 296; 65 Sask.R. 122, refd to. [para. 236].

R. v. Carosella (N.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 80; 207 N.R. 321; 98 O.A.C. 81; 112 C.C.C.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 237].

United States of America v. Shephard, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 1067; 9 N.R. 215, refd to. [para. 243].

R. v. Charemski (J.) (1998), 224 N.R. 120; 108 O.A.C. 126; 15 C.R.(5th) 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 243, footnote 34].

Hodge's Case (1838), 2 Lewin 227; 168 E.R. 1136, refd to. [para. 245].

R. v. Monteleone, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 154; 78 N.R. 377; 23 O.A.C. 241; 35 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 245].

R. v. Allender (B.W.F.) (1996), 70 B.C.A.C. 241; 115 W.A.C. 241; 117 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (C.A.), affd. (1997), 214 N.R. 296; 94 B.C.A.C. 161; 152 W.A.C. 161 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 246, foot­note 35].

R. v. Burke (J.) (No. 3), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 474; 194 N.R. 247; 139 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 147; 433 A.P.R. 147, refd to. [para. 248, footnote 37].

R. v. D.W., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742; 122 N.R. 277; 46 O.A.C. 352; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 397; 3 C.R.(4th) 302, refd to. [para. 258].

R. v. Lifchus (W.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320; 216 N.R. 215; 118 Man.R.(2d) 218; 149 W.A.C. 218; 118 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 259].

R. v. Fleet (M.) (1997), 104 O.A.C. 394; 120 C.C.C.(3d) 457 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 271].

R. v. K.G.B., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 740; 148 N.R. 241; 61 O.A.C. 1; 79 C.C.C.(3d) 257, refd to. [para. 275].

R. v. Cameron (H.) (1995), 80 O.A.C. 58; 96 C.C.C.(3d) 346 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 277].

R. v. Brown (A.R.R.), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 918; 155 N.R. 225; 141 A.R. 163; 46 W.A.C. 163; 83 C.C.C.(3d) 129, refd to. [para. 277].

R. v. Bickford (1989), 34 O.A.C. 34; 51 C.C.C.(3d) 181 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 279].

R. v. Rollocks (R.) (1994), 72 O.A.C. 269; 91 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 278, footnote 38].

R. v. R.R. - see R. v. Rollocks (R.).

R. v. Wigman, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 246; 75 N.R. 51; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 97; [1987] 4 W.W.R. 1; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 530; 56 C.R.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 279, foot­note 39].

R. v. Daly (1992), 57 O.A.C. 70 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 286].

R. v. Jacquard (C.O.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 314; 207 N.R. 246; 157 N.S.R.(2d) 161; 462 A.P.R. 161; 113 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 287].

Ellis v. Deheer, [1922] 2 K.B. 113 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 312].

R. v. Dyson (1971), 5 C.C.C.(2d) 401 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 312].

R. v. Papineau (1980), 58 C.C.C.(2d) 72 (Que. S.C.), refd to. [para. 312].

Hegherty v. National Mutual Life Associ­ation (1892), 8 W.N.(N.S.W.) 122, refd to. [para. 312].

R. v. Armstrong, [1922] 2 K.B. 555; [1922] All E.R. 153 (C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 312].

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, refd to. [para. 315].

R. v. Lord Fitz-Water (1687), 2 Lev. 139; 83 E.R. 487, refd to. [para. 317].

Philips v. Fowler (1735), Barnes 441; 94 E.R. 994, refd to. [para. 317].

Fry v. Hordy (1689), 2 Jon 83; 84 E.R. 1158, refd to. [para. 317].

Dent v. Hertford (1696), 91 E.R. 546 (K.B.), refd to. [para. 317].

Straker v. Graham (1839), 4 M. & W. 721 (Exch.), refd to. [para. 319].

Quinlane v. Murname (1885), 18 L.R. Ir. 53 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 319].

Attorney-General v. New Statesman, [1980] 1 All E.R. 644 (Q.B.D.), refd to. [para. 319].

R. v. Morrissey (R.J.) (1995), 80 O.A.C. 161; 97 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 361].

R. v. R.M.G. (1996), 202 N.R. 1; 81 B.C.A.C. 81; 132 W.A.C. 81; 110 C.C.C.(3d) 26 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 362].

R. v. Rowbotham (R.) and Roblin (D.), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 463; 168 N.R. 220; 72 O.A.C. 98; 90 C.C.C.(3d) 449; 30 C.R.(4th) 141, refd to. [para. 364].

R. v. Pascoe (D.P.) (1997), 96 O.A.C. 337; 113 C.C.C.(3d) 126 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 364].

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.), refd to. [para. 364].

R. v. Mayhew (1975), 29 C.R.(N.S.) 242 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 365].

McDonald v. Pless (1915), 238 U.S. 264, refd to. [para. 366].

R. v. Potvin, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 525; 93 N.R. 42; 21 Q.A.C. 258; 47 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 68 C.R.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 374].

R. v. Hess; R. v. Nguyen, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 906; 119 N.R. 353; 46 O.A.C. 13; 73 Man.R.(2d) 1; 3 W.A.C. 1; [1990] 6 W.W.R. 289; 79 C.R.(3d) 332; 59 C.C.C.(3d) 161, refd to. [para. 375].

R. v. Nguyen - see R. v. Hess; R. v. Nguyen.

R. v. Seaboyer and Gayme, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 577; 128 N.R. 81; 48 O.A.C. 81; 66 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 7 C.R.(4th) 117; 83 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 376].

R. v. Sault St. Marie (City), [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1299; 21 N.R. 295, refd to. [para. 376].

R. v. Stinchcombe, [1995] 1 S.C.R. 754; 178 N.R. 157; 162 A.R. 269; 83 W.A.C. 269, refd to. [para. 377].

R. v. Hebert, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 151; 110 N.R. 1; 77 C.R.(3d) 145; 57 C.C.C.(3d) 1; [1990] 5 W.W.R. 1; 47 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 380].

R. v. Heywood (R.L.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 761; 174 N.R. 81; 50 B.C.A.C. 161; 82 W.A.C. 161; 120 D.L.R.(4th) 348, refd to. [para. 400].

Schachter v. Canada et al., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 679; 139 N.R. 1; 93 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 92 C.L.L.C. 14,036; 10 C.R.R.(2d) 1; 93 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 410].

Eurig Estate v. Ontario Court (General Division), Registrar, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 565; 231 N.R. 55; 114 O.A.C. 55, refd to. [para. 411].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 139 [paras. 197, 320]; sect. 649 [paras. 87, 196, 320]; sect. 653 [para. 224].

United States, Federal Rules of Evidence, rule 606(b) [paras. 125, 357].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Campbell, Enid, Jury Secrecy and Im­peachment of Jury Verdicts - Part I (1985), 9 Crim. L.J. 132, p. 134 [para. 352].

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates (1972), pp. 1700 [para. 324]; 1702 [para. 325].

Canada, Law Reform Commission, Report on the Jury (1982), p. 82 [para. 336].

Canada, Law Reform Commission, The Jury in Criminal Trials (Working Paper No. 27) (1980), pp. 1 [para. 173]; 142 - 143 [para. 331].

Canada, Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, Minutes of Proceed­ings and Evidence (1972), paras. 7:26 [para. 326]; 7:27 [para. 327].

Doob, Andrew, Canadian Jurors View of the Criminal Jury Trial: A Report to the Law Reform Commission of Canada: Studies on the Jury (1979), p. 37 [para. 329].

Hansard - see Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debate.

Holdsworth, William Searle, A History of the English Law (1926), vols. 1, 4, 9 [para. 315].

LaForest, Balancing of Interests Under the Charter (1991), 2 N.J.C.L. 133, gen­erally [para. 399].

Quinlan, Paul, Secrecy of Jury Deliber­ations: Is the Cost Too High (1993), 22 C.R.(4th) 127, p. 141, n. 57 [para. 359].

Singleton, T., The Principles of Funda­mental Justice, Societal Interests and Section 1 of the Charter (1995), 74 Can. Bar Rev. 446, p. 448 [para. 183, footnote 25].

United Kingdom, Tenth Report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee (Se­crecy of the Jury Room) (1968), pp. 649 - 650 [para. 354].

Wigmore on Evidence (1961), vol. 8, p. 671 [para. 128, footnote 10].

Wright and Gold, Federal Practice and Pleadings: Evidence (1990), para. 6070 [para. 358].

Counsel:

Keith E. Wright and Richard Litkowski, for the appellant;

Catherine A. Cooper and Renee M. Pomerance, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on October 5 to 8, 1998, before McMurtry, C.J.O., Finlayson, Osborne, Labrosse and Charron, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The decision of the court was delivered on April 13, 1999, and the following opinions were filed:

McMurtry, C.J.O., Osborne, Labrosse and Charron, JJ.A. - see paragraphs 1 to 301;

Finlayson, J.A. - see paragraphs 302 to 414.