R. v. Pearson (E.), (1992) 144 N.R. 243 (SCC)

• Judge: Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, McLachlin and Iacobucci, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: November 19, 1992
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1992), 144 N.R. 243 (SCC);JE 92-1760;17 WCB (2d) 576;[1992] 3 SCR 665;[1992] SCJ No 99 (QL);[1992] CarswellQue 17;144 NR 243;12 CRR (2d) 1;77 CCC (3d) 124;52 QAC 1;1992 CanLII 52 (SCC);17 CR (4th) 1

R. v. Pearson (E.) (1992), 144 N.R. 243 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Le Procureur général du Québec (appellant) v. Edwin Pearson (respondent) and The Attorney General of Canada, The Attorney General for Ontario, The Attorney General for Saskatchewan and The Criminal Lawyers' Association (interveners)

(22173)

Indexed As: R. v. Pearson (E.)

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-

Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, McLachlin

and Iacobucci, JJ.

November 19, 1992.

Summary:

Pearson was arrested and charged with five counts of trafficking in narcotics. A bail hearing was held shortly after his arrest. Pearson was denied bail and ordered detained in custody until trial. At the end of his preliminary inquiry, Pearson applied under s. 523(2)(b) of the Criminal Code for review of the detention order. The prelimi­nary inquiry judge refused to review this order. Pearson then sought habeas corpus arguing that the Criminal Code provision calling for his detention (s. 515(6)(d)) was unconstitutional. The Attorney General of Canada intervened and moved to dismiss Pearson's application for habeas corpus on the ground that there was an alternative remedy under s. 520, Criminal Code. The Quebec Superior Court (Biron, J.) granted the Attor­ney General's motion and dismissed Pear­son's application. Pearson appealed.

The Quebec Court of Appeal, in a judg­ment reported at, [1990] R.J.Q. 2438; 59 C.C.C.(3d) 406; 5 C.R.R.(2d) 164; 79 C.R.(3d) 90, allowed the appeal, holding that habeas corpus was an available remedy in the circumstances. The Attorney General of Quebec appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, McLachlin and La Forest, JJ., dissenting, allowed the appeal. The court held that habeas corpus was available here but denied the issue of the writ because s. 515(6)(d) was constitu­tional.

Civil Rights - Topic 3140

Trials, due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Right to bail - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the scope of the right to bail contained in s. 11(e) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - See paragraphs 44 to 54.

Droits et libertés - Cote 3140

Procès, application régulière de la loi, justice fondamentale et audiences équita­bles - Affaires criminelles et quasi-criminelles - Droit à la mise en liberté sous caution - [Voir Civil Rights - Topic 3140 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 3622

Detention and imprisonment - Bail and interim release - Denial of bail without just cause - Pearson was arrested and charged with five counts of trafficking in narcotics - By virtue of s. 515(6)(d), Criminal Code, bail was denied and Pearson was ordered detained until trial - The prelimi­nary inquiry judge refused to review the detention order - Pearson applied for habeas corpus on the ground that s. 515(6)(d) violated ss. 7, 9, 11(d) and 11(e) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - The Supreme Court of Canada held that habeas corpus was an available remedy here but denied the issue of the writ because s. 515(6)(d) was constitu­tionally valid - See paragraphs 1 to 76.

Droits et libertés - Cote 3622

Détention et emprisonnement - Libération sous caution et libération provisoire - Etre privé sans juste cause d'une mise en liberté assortie d'un cautionnement raisonnable - [Voir Civil Rights - Topic 3622 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 4901

Presumption of innocence - General prin­ciples - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the presumption of innocence under the light of ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - See paragraphs 28 to 43.

Droits et libertés - Cote 4901

Présomption d'innocence - Principes géné­raux - [Voir Civil Rights - Topic 4901 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8380.11

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies, habeas corpus - Pearson was arrested and charged with five counts of trafficking in narcotics - By virtue of s. 515(6)(d), Criminal Code, bail was denied and Pearson was ordered detained until trial - The preliminary inquiry judge refused to review the deten­tion order - Pearson applied for habeas corpus on the ground that s. 515(6)(d) violated ss. 7, 9, 11(d) and 11(e) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - The Supreme Court of Canada held that habeas corpus was an available remedy here but denied the issue of the writ because s. 515(6)(d) was constitutionally valid - See paragraphs 1 to 76.

Droits et libertés - Cote 8380.11

Charte canadienne des droits et libertés - Négation de droits - Recours - [Voir Civil Rights - Topic 8380.11 ].

Habeas Corpus - Topic 1504

Bars to issue of writ - Existence of other remedies - Pearson was arrested and charged with five counts of trafficking in narcotics - By virtue of s. 515(6)(d), Criminal Code, bail was denied and Pearson was ordered detained until trial - The prelimi­nary inquiry judge refused to review the detention order - Pearson applied for habeas corpus on the ground that s. 515(6)(d) violated ss. 7, 9, 11(d) and 11(e) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - The Attorney General of Canada intervened and moved to dismiss Pearson's application on the ground that there was an alternative reme­dy under s. 520, Criminal Code - The Supreme Court of Canada held that habeas corpus was an available remedy here - See para­graphs 20 to 27.

Habeas corpus - Cote 1504

Obstacles à la délivrance du bref - Exis­tence d'autres recours - [Voir Habeas Corpus - Topic 1504 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Morales (M.) (1992), 144 N.R. 176 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 1].

R. v. Gamble, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 595; 89 N.R. 161; 31 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335; 26 D.L.R.(4th) 200; 50 C.R.(3d) 1; 24 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 19 C.R.R. 308, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Mills, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 863; 67 N.R. 241; 16 O.A.C. 161; 29 D.L.R.(4th) 161; 55 C.R.(3d) 1; 26 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Seaboyer and Gayme, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 577; 128 N.R. 81; 48 O.A.C. 81; 7 C.R.(4th) 117, refd to. [para. 25].

Steele v. Mountain Institution, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1385; 121 N.R. 198; 60 C.C.C. (3d) 1, consd. [para. 26].

Woolmington v. Director of Public Prose­cutions, [1935] A.C. 462 (H.L.), consd. [para. 28].

Reference Re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266; [1986] 1 W.W.R. 481; 24 D.L.R.(4th) 536, consd. [para. 29].

R. v. Dubois, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 350; 62 N.R. 50; 66 A.R. 202; 48 C.R.(3d) 193; 22 C.C.C.(3d) 513; [1986] 1 W.W.R. 193; 41 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97; 18 C.R.R. 1; 23 D.L.R.(4th) 503, consd. [para. 30].

R. v. Lyons, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 309; 80 N.R. 161; 82 N.S.R.(2d) 271; 207 A.P.R. 271, consd. [para. 32].

R. v. Gardiner, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 368; 43 N.R. 361; 68 C.C.C.(2d) 477, refd to. [para. 36].

Imperial Oil Ltd. c. Tanguay, [1971] C.A. 109, refd to. [para. 38].

Dean v. Dean, [1987] 1 F.L.R. 517 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Vaillancourt, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 636; 81 N.R. 115; 10 Q.A.C. 161; 60 C.R.(3d) 289; 68 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 281; 209 A.P.R. 281, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Whyte, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 3; 86 N.R. 328, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Chaulk and Morrissette, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1303; 119 N.R. 161; 69 Man.R.(2d) 161, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Wholesale Travel Group Inc. and Chedore, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 154; 130 N.R. 1; 49 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Généreux, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 259; 133 N.R. 241, consd. [para. 42].

Stack v. Boyle (1951), 342 U.S. 1, refd to. [para. 47].

Carlson v. Landon (1952), 342 U.S. 524, refd to. [para. 47].

United States v. Edwards (1981), 430 A.2d 1321, certiorari denied (1982), 455 U.S. 1022, refd to. [para. 47].

United States v. Salerno (1987), 481 U.S. 739, refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. Bray (1983), 40 O.R.(2d) 766; 2 C.C.C.(3d) 325 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Lauze (1980), 17 C.R.(3d) 90 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Smith (E.D.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1045; 75 N.R. 321; 34 C.C.C.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 65].

R. v. Hufsky, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 621; 84 N.R. 365; 27 O.A.C. 103; 40 C.C.C.(3d) 398; 63 C.R.(3d) 14, consd. [para. 68].

R. v. Ladouceur, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1257; 108 N.R. 171; 40 O.A.C. 1; 77 C.R.(3d) 110; 56 C.C.C.(3d) 20, refd to. [para. 69].

R. v. Wilson, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1291; 108 N.R. 207; 107 A.R. 321, refd to. [para. 69].

R. v. Drysdelle (1978), 22 N.B.R.(2d) 86; 39 A.P.R. 86; 41 C.C.C.(2d) 238 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 81].

R. v. Larson (1972), 6 C.C.C.(2d) 145 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 81].

Statutes Noticed:

Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-570, 100 Stat. 3207 (1986).

Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, Pub. L. No. 100-690, 102 Stat. 4181 (1988).

Bail Reform Act/Réforme du cautionne­ment, Loi sur la, S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 37.

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982/Charte canadienne des droits et libertés, 1982, sect. 7, sect. 8, sect. 9, sect. 10, sect. 11, sect. 11(d), sect. 11(e), sect. 12, sect. 14, sect. 24(1).

Constitution Act, 1982,/Loi constitution­nelle de 1982, sect. 52.

Constitution of the United States, Eighth Amendment/Constitution des Etats-Unis, Huitième Amendement.

Criminal Code/Code criminel, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46, sect. 254(3), sect. 487(1), sect. 504, sect. 507(1), sect. 515(1), sect. 515(2), sect. 515(5), sect. 515(6)(d), sect. 515(7), sect. 515(8), sect. 515(10)(a), sect. 515(10)(b), sect. 516, sect. 518(1)(b), sect. 520(1), sect. 520(8), sect. 521, sect. 523(2)(b), sect. 525(1), sect. 525(3), sect. 686(8), sect. 784(3).

Narcotic Control Act/Stupéfiants, Loi sur les, R.S.C., 1985, c. N-1, sect. 2 "traffic", 4, 5.

Rules of Practice of the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec, Criminal Division/Règles de pratique de la Cour supé­rieure du Québec en matière criminelle, SI/74-53, sect. 15 [am. SI/89-52].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Australia, Parliament of the Common­wealth of Australia, Report of the Aus­tralian Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs, Book B, 1980, p. B222 [para. 63].

Carrigan, D. Owen, Crime and Punish­ment in Canada: A History (1991), p. 196 [para. 82].

Olah, John A., Sentencing: The Last Fron­tier of the Criminal Law (1980), 16 C.R.(3d) 97, p. 121 [para. 36].

Québec, Groupe de travail sur la lutte contre la drogue, Rapport du groupe de travail sur la lutte contre la drogue, Québec: Publications du Québec, 1990, pp. 18, 19, 21, 24 [para. 60].

United States, Senate, Judiciary Commit­tee, Report No. 98-225, Comprehensive Crime Control Act, 1983, 98th Cong., 1st Sess. Report of the Committee on the Judiciary on S. 1762, 1983, p. 20 [para. 63].

Verrilli Jr., Donald B., The Eighth Amendment and the Right to Bail: Historical Perspectives (1982), 82 Colum. L. Rev. 328 [para. 47].

Counsel:

Robert Marchi, for the appellant;

Christian Desrosiers, for the respondent;

Jacques Malboeuf, Q.C., for the intervener, the Attorney General of Canada;

J. A. Ramsay, for the intervener, the At­torney General for Ontario;

John Thomson Irvine, for the intervener, the Attorney General for Saskatchewan;

Bruce Duncan and Aimée Gauthier, for the intervener, the Criminal Lawyers' Asso­ciation.

Solicitors of Record:

Robert Marchi, Montreal, Quebec, for the appellant;

Desrosiers, Provost,Taillefer, Groulx, Tur­cotte & Assoc., Montreal, Quebec, for the respondent;

John C. Tait, Q.C., Deputy Attorney Gen­eral of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Canada;

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

Darryl Bogdasavich, Regina, Saskatchewan, for the intervener, the Attorney General for Saskatchewan;

Duncan, Fava & Schermbrucker, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the Criminal Lawyers' Association.

This appeal was heard on May 28, 1992, by Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, McLachlin and Iacobucci, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The decision of the Supreme Court was delivered in both official languages on No­vember 19, 1992, and the following opinions were filed:

Lamer, C.J.C. (Sopinka and Iacobucci, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 74;

Gonthier, J. (L'Heureux-Dubé, J., con­curring) - see paragraphs 75 to 76;

McLachlin, J., dissenting - see para­graphs 77 to 92;

La Forest, J., dissenting - see paragraph 93.