R. v. Pan (R.W.); R. v. Sawyer (B.), 2001 SCC 42

JudgeMcLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ.
CourtSupreme Court (Canada)
Case DateJune 29, 2001
JurisdictionCanada (Federal)
Citations2001 SCC 42;(2001), 270 N.R. 317 (SCC);85 CRR (2d) 1;[2001] 2 SCR 344;[2001] SCJ No 44 (QL);270 NR 317;147 OAC 1;155 CCC (3d) 97;200 DLR (4th) 577;43 CR (5th) 203

R. v. Pan (R.W.) (2001), 270 N.R. 317 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Temp. Cite: [2001] N.R. TBEd. JN.046

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

Bradley Sawyer (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) and The Attorney General of Canada, The Attorney General of Quebec, The Attorney General of Manitoba, The Attorney General of British Columbia and The Criminal Lawyers' Association (Ontario) (interveners)

(27424; 27277; 2001 SCC 42)

Indexed As: R. v. Pan (R.W.); R. v. Sawyer (B.)

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ.

June 29, 2001.

Summary:

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

The accused (Pan) 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 twelve 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 (s. 649). 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, in a decision reported 120 O.A.C. 1, dismissed the appeal. The accused appealed again.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal. The court discussed in detail the common law rule respecting jury secrecy and held that the rule, as interpreted by the court, did not infringe ss. 7, 11(d) or 11(f) of the Charter. The court held that Watt, J., did not err in refusing to stay proceedings where the judge at the second trial did not act improp­erly in declaring a mistrial. The court held that the fresh evidence offered by the accused was not admissible because of the jury secrecy rule, and even if it was admiss­ible, the evidence was not relevant to whether the judge at the second trial proper­ly declared a mistrial nor would it support the accused's request for an acquittal or stay of proceedings.

R. v. Sawyer (B.)

The accused (Sawyer and a co-accused) were convicted of assault causing bodily harm. The accused appealed, attacking the constitutionality of the jury secrecy rules and seeking to tender fresh evidence of matters relating to the jury deliberations.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a decision reported 120 O.A.C. 114, for the reasons given by the court in R. v. Pan dismissed the application to admit fresh evidence and dismissed the appeal. Sawyer appealed again.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal. The court held that applying the common law rule of jury secrecy, as inter­preted by the court, the evidence offered by the accused was clearly inadmissible.

Civil Rights - Topic 3146.1

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Jury secrecy - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the common law rule respecting jury secrecy, as interpreted by the court, did not infringe ss. 7, 11(d) or 11(f) of the Charter - The court found it unnecessary, in this appeal, to consider the constitutionality of s. 649 of the Criminal Code, which made it an offence for a juror to disclose proceedings of the jury - The court, however, dis­cussed the relationship between s. 649 and the common law rule - The court opined that s. 649 was consistent with the com­mon law rule, which itself met the consti­tutional requirements of fairness embodied in s. 7 -See paragraphs 79 to 90.

Civil Rights - Topic 3157.4

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Abuse of process - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4633 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8404

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Criminal proceedings - Double jeopardy -[See Criminal Law - Topic 4631 and Criminal Law - Topic 4633 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 120

General principles - Double jeopardy - General - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4631 and Criminal Law - Topic 4633 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4306.1

Procedure - Jury - Disclosure of jury pro­ceedings - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed generally the common law rule of jury secrecy (Lord Mansfield's rule) - See paragraphs 41 to 78 - The court con­cluded that "... a proper interpretation of the modern version of Lord Mansfield's rule is as follows: Statements made, opin­ions expressed, arguments advanced and votes cast by members of a jury in the course of their deliberations are inadmiss­ible in any legal proceedings. In particular, jurors may not testify about the effect of anything on their or other jurors' minds emotions or ultimate decision. On the other hand, the common law rule does not ren­der inadmissible evidence of facts, state­ments or events extrinsic to the deliber­ation process, whether originating from a juror or from a third party, that may have tainted the verdict." - See paragraph 77.

Criminal Law - Topic 4306.1

Procedure - Jury - Disclosure of jury pro­ceedings - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the common law rule respecting jury secrecy - The court stated that the rules governing secrecy of jury deliber­ations do not operate in a vacuum, but in a larger context with the many other safe­guards that ensure the integrity and relia­bility of verdicts in jury trials - The court discussed these other safeguards such as the power to set aside an unreasonable verdict, challenges for cause, the interac­tion between the judge and jury, the re­quirement of a unanimous verdict, etc. - See paragraphs 91 to 99.

Criminal Law - Topic 4306.1

Procedure - Jury - Disclosure of jury pro­ceedings - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3146.1 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4306.1

Procedure - Jury - Disclosure of jury pro­ceedings - The accused's (Pan'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 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 and seeking to admit evi­dence from the jury members from the second trial as fresh evidence - The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - The accused appealed again - The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal holding that the fresh evidence offered by the accused was not admissible because of the jury secrecy rule, and even if it was admissible, the evidence was not relevant to whether the judge at the second trial properly declared a mistrial nor would it support the accused's request for an acquittal or stay of proceedings - See paragraphs 1 to 129.

Criminal Law - Topic 4306.1

Procedure - Jury - Disclosure of jury pro­ceedings - The accused (Sawyer) was convicted of assault causing bodily harm - He appealed and sought to adduce as fresh evidence an affidavit setting out the sub­stance of a telephone conversation he had with one of the jurors after the verdict - The gist of the conversation was that the verdict was "eating her inside" and that the juror had been subjected to undue pressure in coming to the verdict - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that this evidence fell within the scope of the common law rule of jury secrecy and was inadmissible on appeal - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the decision - The court stated that applying the common law rule of jury secrecy, as interpreted by the court, the evidence offered by the accused was clearly inadmissible - See paragraphs 123 to 126.

Criminal Law - Topic 4324

Procedure - Jury - Discharge of jury - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4631 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4351

Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Direction regar­ding burden of proof and reasonable doubt - The accused (Pan) 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 - The accused appealed again - The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal - See para­graphs 127 and 128.

Criminal Law - Topic 4486

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

Criminal Law - Topic 4631

Procedure - Mistrials - General - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the power to discharge a jury under s. 653(1) of the Criminal Code and/or the common law power of a judge to declare a mistrial during or following the deliberations of the jury did not violate the protection against double jeopardy guaranteed by s. 7 of the Charter - See paragraphs 110, 111 and 129.

Criminal Law - Topic 4633

Procedure - Mistrials - Grounds - The accused's (Pan's) first two murder trials were declared mistrials - The accused sought a stay of a third trial without suc­cess - The third trial ensued and the accused was convicted of first degree murder - The accused appealed, arguing that there was an abuse of process because the motions judge acted improperly in declaring a mistrial at the second trial and, therefore, the third trial offended the prin­ciple against double jeopardy for which the appropriate remedy was a stay of proceed­ings - The Ontario Court of Appeal dis­missed the appeal - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the decision, stating that the judge did not act improperly in declar­ing a mistrial at the second trial, therefore, the accused's submissions in support of a stay of proceedings, whether framed in terms of abuse of process, double jeopardy or s. 7 of the Charter were without merit - See paragraphs 112 to 121.

Criminal Law - Topic 4970

Appeals - Indictable offences - Powers of Court of Appeal - Receiving fresh evi­dence - General - [See fourth and fifth Crimi­nal Law - Topic 4306.1 ].

Cases Noticed:

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

R. v. Nash (1949), 94 C.C.C. 288 (N.B.C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Keyowski, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 657; 83 N.R. 296; 65 Sask.R. 122; 32 C.R.R. 269; 40 C.C.C.(3d) 481; [1988] 4 W.W.R. 97, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Farinacci (L.W.) et al. (1993), 67 O.A.C. 197; 109 D.L.R.(4th) 97 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. R.M.G., [1996] 3 S.C.R. 362; 202 N.R. 1; 81 B.C.A.C. 81; 132 W.A.C. 81; 110 C.C.C.(3d) 26, refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Sherratt, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 509; 122 N.R. 241; 73 Man.R.(2d) 161; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 42].

MacKeigan, J.A., et al. v. Royal Commis­sion (Marshall Inquiry), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 796; 100 N.R. 81; 94 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 247 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Valente, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 673; 64 N.R. 1; 14 O.A.C. 79, refd to. [para. 45].

Beauregard v. Canada, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 56; 70 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Endicott, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 155; 156 N.R. 321; 141 A.R. 353; 46 W.A.C. 353; 12 Alta. L.R.(3d) 1; 83 C.C.C.(3d) 462, refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Dyson, [1972] 1 O.R. 744 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 47].

Vaise v. Delaval (1785), 1 T.R. 11; 99 E.R. 944 (K.B.), refd to. [para. 48].

Danis v. Saumure, [1956] S.C.R. 403, refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Williams (V.D.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1128; 226 N.R. 162; 107 B.C.A.C. 1; 174 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. Bean, [1991] Crim. L.R. 843 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. Putnam, Lyon and Taylor (1991), 93 Cr. App. R. 281 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].

R. v. Brandon (1969), 53 Cr. App. R. 466 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].

R. v. McCluskey (1993), 98 Cr. App. R. 216 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].

R. v. Thompson, [1962] 1 All E.R. 65 (C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 56].

R. v. Perras (1974), 18 C.C.C.(2d) 47 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. Mercier (1973), 12 C.C.C.(2d) 377 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. Ryan (1951), 13 C.R. 363 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 57].

Wilson v. R. (1993), 85 Man.R.(2d) 250; 41 W.A.C. 250; 78 C.C.C.(3d) 568 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 58].

R. v. Zacharias (1987), 39 C.C.C.(3d) 280 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 65].

Tanner v. United States (1987), 483 U.S. 107, refd to. [para. 71].

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. 85].

R. v. Armstrong, [1922] All E.R. 153 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 89].

R. v. Yebes, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 168; 78 N.R. 351, refd to. [para. 93].

R. v. Biniaris (J.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 381; 252 N.R. 204; 134 B.C.A.C. 161; 219 W.A.C. 261, refd to. [para. 93].

R. v. Molodowic (A.J.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 420; 252 N.R. 250; 145 Man.R.(2d) 201; 218 W.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 93].

R. v. A.G., [2000] 1 S.C.R. 439; 252 N.R. 272; 132 O.A.C. 1; 143 C.C.C.(3d) 46, refd to. [para. 93].

R. v. Sophonow (1986), 38 Man.R.(2d) 198; 25 C.C.C.(3d) 415 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 96].

R. v. Hahn (D.) (1995), 62 B.C.A.C. 6; 103 W.A.C. 6 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 96].

R. v. Taillefer (1995), 100 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 96].

R. v. Lessard (1992), 74 C.C.C.(3d) 552 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 96].

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. 104].

R. v. Starr (R.D.), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 144; 258 N.R. 250; 148 Man.R.(2d) 161; 224 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 104].

R. v. Beauchamp (A.), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 720; 262 N.R. 119, refd to. [para. 104].

R. v. Russell (M.E.), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 731; 261 N.R. 339; 266 A.R. 379; 228 W.A.C. 379, refd to. [para. 104].

R. v. Avetysan (A.), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 745; 262 N.R. 96; 195 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 338; 586 A.P.R. 338, refd to. [para. 104].

R. v. Conway, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1659; 96 N.R. 241; 34 O.A.C. 165; 49 C.C.C.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 112].

R. v. Jewitt, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 128; 61 N.R. 159; 21 C.C.C.(3d) 7, refd to. [para. 112].

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; 103 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 112].

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. 112].

R. v. La (H.K.) et al., [1997] 2 S.C.R. 680; 213 N.R. 1; 200 A.R. 81; 146 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 112].

R. v. Campbell (J.) and Shirose (S.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 565; 237 N.R. 86; 119 O.A.C. 201; 133 C.C.C.(3d) 257, refd to. [para. 112].

States v. Perez (1824), 22 U.S. 579, refd to. [para. 115].

United States v. Sanford (1976), 429 U.S. 14, refd to. [para. 115].

Richardson v. United States (1984), 468 U.S. 317, refd to. [para. 115].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 7, sect. 11(d), sect. 11(f) [para. 20].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 139, sect. 644, sect. 649, sect. 653 [para. 20].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canada, Law Reform Commission, Report 16 (1982), generally [paras. 72, 101].

Canada, Law Reform Commission, The Jury in Criminal Trials, Working Paper No. 27 (1980), p. 19 [para. 99].

Chopra, Sonia R., and Ogloff, James R.P., Evaluating Jury Secrecy: Implications for Academic Research and Juror Stress (2000), 44 Crim. L.Q. 190, generally [para. 101].

Coke on Littleton (1789), vol. 2, para. 227b [para. 47].

Pound, Roscoe, Readings on the History and Systems of the Common Law (2nd Ed. 1913), pp. 123, 124 [para. 99].

Quinlan, Paul, Secrecy of Jury Delibera­tions - Is the Cost Too High? (1993), 22 C.R.(4th) 127, generally [para. 101].

Wigmore, John Henry, Evidence in Trials at Common Law (1961), vol. 8, p. 696, §2352 [para. 48].

Counsel:

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

P. Andras Schreck and Shayne G. Kert, for the appellant, Bradley Sawyer;

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

George Dolhai and S.R. Fainstein, Q.C., for the intervener, the Attorney General of Canada;

Marie-Claude Gilbert and Gilles Laporte, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Quebec;

Holly D. Penner, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Manitoba;

William F. Ehrcke, Q.C., and Mary Ains­lie, for the intervener, the Attorney Gen­eral of British Columbia;

Melvyn Green and Benson Cowan, for the intervener, the Criminal Lawyers' Asso­ciation (Ontario).

Solicitors of Record:

Keith E. Wright, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant, Rui Wen Pan.

Buhr & Kert, Toronto; Pinkofsky Lockyer, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant, Brad­ley Sawyer;

The Attorney General for Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent;

The Department of Justice, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Canada;

The Department of Justice, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the intervener, the Attor­ney General of Manitoba;

The Department of Justice, Sainte-Foy, Quebec, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Quebec;

The Ministry of the Attorney General, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Brit­ish Columbia;

Sack Goldblatt Mitchell, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the Criminal Lawyers' Association (Ontario).

These appeals were heard on December 8, 2000, before McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Basta­rache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On June 29, 2001, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada, was delivered in both official languages by Arbour, J.

To continue reading

Request your trial
136 practice notes
  • R. v. Wilder (D.M.), [2003] B.C.T.C. 859 (SC)
    • Canada
    • British Columbia Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • June 3, 2003
    ...(A.W.) (1991), 4 B.C.A.C. 26; 9 W.A.C. 26; 67 C.C.C.(3d) 385 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 285]. R. v. Pan (R.W.); R. v. Sawyer (B.) (2001), 270 N.R. 317; 147 O.A.C. 1; 155 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (S.C.C.), refd to. R. v. Terry (R.S.), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 207; 197 N.R. 105; 76 B.C.A.C. 25; 125 W.A.C. 25; 106 C......
  • R. v. Song (D.), (2001) 296 A.R. 132 (QB)
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • July 25, 2001
    ...3 S.C.R. 391; 218 N.R. 81; 118 C.C.C.(3d) 443; 10 C.R.(5th) 163, refd to. [para. 80, footnote 47]. R. v. Pan (R.W.); R. v. Sawyer (B.) (2001), 270 N.R. 317; 147 O.A.C. 1 (S.C.C.), affing. (1999), 120 O.A.C. 1; 134 C.C.C.(3d) 23; 26 C.R.(5th) 87 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 80, footnote R. v. Reg......
  • R. v. Richard (D.R.) et al., (2013) 299 Man.R.(2d) 1 (CA)
    • Canada
    • Manitoba Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
    • December 19, 2012
    ...178]. R. v. Bains (L.) et al., [2013] O.T.C. Uned. 950; 2013 ONSC 950, refd to. [para. 178]. R. v. Pan (R.W.); R. v. Sawyer (B.), [2001] 2 S.C.R. 344; 270 N.R. 317; 147 O.A.C. 1; 2001 SCC 42, appld. [para. R. v. Stolar - see R. v. Nielsen and Stolar. R. v. Nielsen and Stolar, [1988] 1 S.C.R......
  • R. v. Golden, [2001] 3 SCR 679
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • December 6, 2001
    ...[1986] 2 S.C.R. 573; Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130; R. v. Salituro, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 654; R. v. Pan, [2001] 2 S.C.R. 344, 2001 SCC 42; R. v. Christopher, [1994] O.J. No. 3120 (QL); R. v. Toulouse, [1994] O.J. No. 2746 (QL); R. v. Coulter, [2000] O.J. No. 3452......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
114 cases
  • R. v. Wilder (D.M.), [2003] B.C.T.C. 859 (SC)
    • Canada
    • British Columbia Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • June 3, 2003
    ...(A.W.) (1991), 4 B.C.A.C. 26; 9 W.A.C. 26; 67 C.C.C.(3d) 385 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 285]. R. v. Pan (R.W.); R. v. Sawyer (B.) (2001), 270 N.R. 317; 147 O.A.C. 1; 155 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (S.C.C.), refd to. R. v. Terry (R.S.), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 207; 197 N.R. 105; 76 B.C.A.C. 25; 125 W.A.C. 25; 106 C......
  • R. v. Song (D.), (2001) 296 A.R. 132 (QB)
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • July 25, 2001
    ...3 S.C.R. 391; 218 N.R. 81; 118 C.C.C.(3d) 443; 10 C.R.(5th) 163, refd to. [para. 80, footnote 47]. R. v. Pan (R.W.); R. v. Sawyer (B.) (2001), 270 N.R. 317; 147 O.A.C. 1 (S.C.C.), affing. (1999), 120 O.A.C. 1; 134 C.C.C.(3d) 23; 26 C.R.(5th) 87 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 80, footnote R. v. Reg......
  • R. v. Richard (D.R.) et al., (2013) 299 Man.R.(2d) 1 (CA)
    • Canada
    • Manitoba Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
    • December 19, 2012
    ...178]. R. v. Bains (L.) et al., [2013] O.T.C. Uned. 950; 2013 ONSC 950, refd to. [para. 178]. R. v. Pan (R.W.); R. v. Sawyer (B.), [2001] 2 S.C.R. 344; 270 N.R. 317; 147 O.A.C. 1; 2001 SCC 42, appld. [para. R. v. Stolar - see R. v. Nielsen and Stolar. R. v. Nielsen and Stolar, [1988] 1 S.C.R......
  • R. v. Golden, [2001] 3 SCR 679
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • December 6, 2001
    ...[1986] 2 S.C.R. 573; Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130; R. v. Salituro, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 654; R. v. Pan, [2001] 2 S.C.R. 344, 2001 SCC 42; R. v. Christopher, [1994] O.J. No. 3120 (QL); R. v. Toulouse, [1994] O.J. No. 2746 (QL); R. v. Coulter, [2000] O.J. No. 3452......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
21 books & journal articles
  • Preliminary Matters and Remedies
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Criminal Procedure. Fourth Edition
    • June 23, 2020
    ...of Members of a Jury.” 229 Section 644(1). This power should not be exercised lightly. The Supreme Court noted in R v Pan; R v Sawyer , 2001 SCC 42 at para 97, that Section 644 only permits jurors to be discharged in the course of the trial where a serious issue arises as to their fitness a......
  • Table of cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Archive The Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Sixth Edition
    • June 22, 2017
    ...69, 324 R v P(MB), [1994] 1 SCR 555, 89 CCC (3d) 289 ................................................ 328 R v Pan, [2001] 2 SCR 244, 2001 SCC 42, 200 DLR (4th) 577 ...........................337 R v Pappajohn, [1980] 2 SCR 120, 111 DLR (3d) 1, 1980 CanLII 13 ................ 299 R v Parker ......
  • The Trial Process
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Criminal Procedure. Fourth Edition
    • June 23, 2020
    ...not applicable in the context of understanding a charge to the jury. 255 Daley , above note 234 at para 31. 256 R v Pan; R v Sawyer , [2001] 2 SCR 344 at para 98 [ Pan ]. 257 See, for example, R v Walker , 2019 ONCA 806, where the trial judge offered the opinion, in his charge, that the obj......
  • Table of Cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books National Security Law. Second Edition Accountability
    • August 5, 2021
    ...407, 408, 488 R v Osolin, [1993] 4 SCR 595, 109 DLR (4th) 478, [1993] SCJ No 135 ............... 53 R v Pan, [2001] 2 SCR 344, 200 DLR (4th) 577, 2001 SCC 42 ........................... 530 R v Perka, [1984] 2 SCR 232, 13 DLR (4th) 1, [1984] SCJ No 40 ......................684 R v Peshdary,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT