R. v. Pino (E.), 2016 ONCA 389
Judge | Laskin, Tulloch and Pardu, JJ.A. |
Court | Court of Appeal (Ontario) |
Case Date | October 29, 2015 |
Jurisdiction | Ontario |
Citations | 2016 ONCA 389;(2016), 349 O.A.C. 269 (CA) |
R. v. Pino (E.) (2016), 349 O.A.C. 269 (CA)
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite: [2016] O.A.C. TBEd. MY.022
Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Eneida Pino (appellant)
(C56288; 2016 ONCA 389)
Indexed As: R. v. Pino (E.)
Ontario Court of Appeal
Laskin, Tulloch and Pardu, JJ.A.
May 24, 2016.
Summary:
The accused, a 43-year-old house cleaner with no previous criminal record, was convicted of possessing 50 marijuana plants for the purpose of trafficking. The marijuana was seized from the trunk of her car following a search incident to her arrest on an Ottawa street. The accused brought a motion before trial to exclude the marijuana on the ground the police had violated her constitutional rights under the Charter. The trial judge found the following three Charter violations: (1) the manner of the police search was unreasonable (s. 8) because the police carried out the accused's arrest by a dangerous and unnecessary masked take-down at gunpoint; (2) the police misinformed the accused about her right to counsel (s. 10(b)); and the police denied the accused her right to consult counsel without delay (s. 10(b)), by holding her incommunicado in a jail cell for nearly five and a half hours after her arrest. The trial judge also found that the two police officers who testified about the accused's arrest lied to the court. Nonetheless, the trial judge refused to exclude the marijuana seized from the accused's car under s. 24(2) of the Charter. He concluded the evidence was not "obtained in a manner" that infringed the accused's right to counsel because both s. 10(b) breaches occurred after the police discovered the marijuana. The trial judge then found that the breach of the accused's s. 8 right was "of more than modest seriousness, but "far from at the extreme end of seriousness"; the impact of the s. 8 breach on her interests was "of qualified significance"; and exclusion of the evidence "would therefore gut the prosecution against her". After balancing these three considerations, the trial judge concluded that admitting the evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute. The accused appealed her conviction.
The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and entered an acquittal. The trial judge erred in law by concluding that he could not exclude the evidence because of the two s. 10(b) breaches. The trial judge erred in law by holding that Charter breaches after the discovery of the challenged evidence could not meet the "obtained in a manner" requirement in s. 24(2). All three Charter breaches found by the trial judge satisfied the "obtained in a manner" requirement in s. 24(2) where they were all "temporally" and "contextually" connected to the evidence sought to be excluded; and they all occurred in the course of the same "transaction", being the accused's arrest. Further, the trial judge understated the seriousness of the s. 8 breach by speculating about why the police lied in their testimony. The court held that the evidence should be excluded under s. 24(2).
Civil Rights - Topic 1651
Property - Search and seizure - Warrantless search and seizure - Motor vehicles - See paragraph 46.
Civil Rights - Topic 4602
Right to counsel - General - Denial of - Evidence taken inadmissible - See paragraphs 38 to 78 and 100 to 108.
Civil Rights - Topic 8368
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - See paragraphs 1 to 108.
Criminal Law - Topic 3147
Special powers - Power of search - Search incidental to arrest or detention - See paragraph 46.
Criminal Law - Topic 4853
Appeals - Indictable offences - Grounds of appeal - Grounds raised for the first time on appeal - See paragraphs 44 and 45.
Evidence - Topic 108
Degree, standard or burden of proof - Standard or degree of proof - Conjecture or speculation - See paragraphs 91 to 98.
Police - Topic 3185
Powers - Search - Following arrest or detention - See paragraph 46.
Words and Phrases
Obtained in a manner - The Ontario Court of Appeal discussed the meaning of this phrase as found in s. 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982 - See paragraphs 48 to 78.
Counsel:
Howard L. Krongold, for the appellant;
John North, for respondent.
This appeal was heard on October 29, 2015, by Laskin, Tulloch and Pardu, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. Laskin, J.A., delivered the following reasons for decision for the court on May 24, 2016.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
R. v. White,
...341; R. v. Harrison, 2009 SCC 34; R. v. Loewen, 2011 SCC 21; R. v. Chaisson, 2006 SCC 11; R. v. Boutros, 2018 ONCA 375; R. v. Pino, 2016 ONCA 389; R. v. Kossick, 2018 SKCA 55; R. v. Yakubovsky-Rositsan, 2010 ONCA 748; R. v. Adler, 2020 ONCA 246; R. v. Buhay, 2003 SCC 30; R. v. Paterson, 201......
-
R. v. Tim, 2022 SCC 12
...980; R. v. Plaha (2004), 189 O.A.C. 376; R. v. Mian, 2014 SCC 54, [2014] 2 S.C.R. 689; R. v. Goldhart, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 463; R. v. Pino, 2016 ONCA 389, 130 O.R. (3d) 561; R. v. Lichtenwald, 2020 SKCA 70, 388 C.C.C. (3d) 377; R. v. Reilly, 2020 BCCA 369, 397 C.C.C. (3d) 219, aff’d 2021 SCC 38......
-
R. v. Beaver, 2022 SCC 54
...BCCA 72, 283 B.C.A.C. 215; R. v. Manchulenko, 2013 ONCA 543, 116 O.R. (3d) 721; R. v. Mack, 2014 SCC 58, [2014] 3 S.C.R. 3; R. v. Pino, 2016 ONCA 389, 130 O.R. (3d) 561; R. v. Lewis, 2007 ONCA 349, 86 O.R. (3d) 46; R. v. Woods, 2008 ONCA 713; R. v. Hamilton, 2017 ONCA 179, 347 C.C.C. (3d) 1......
-
Court Of Appeal Summaries (June 10-14)
...ss.10(b) and 24(2), Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19, ss.7(1) and 5(2), R. v. Reid, 2016 ONCA 524, R. v. Pino, 2016 ONCA 389, R. v. Plaha (2004), 188 C.C.C. (3d) 289 (Ont. C.A.), R. v. Goldhart (1996), 107 C.C.C (3d) 481 (SCC), R. v. Lenhardt, 2019 ONCA 416, R. v. Grant......
-
R. v. White,
...341; R. v. Harrison, 2009 SCC 34; R. v. Loewen, 2011 SCC 21; R. v. Chaisson, 2006 SCC 11; R. v. Boutros, 2018 ONCA 375; R. v. Pino, 2016 ONCA 389; R. v. Kossick, 2018 SKCA 55; R. v. Yakubovsky-Rositsan, 2010 ONCA 748; R. v. Adler, 2020 ONCA 246; R. v. Buhay, 2003 SCC 30; R. v. Paterson, 201......
-
R. v. Beaver, 2022 SCC 54
...BCCA 72, 283 B.C.A.C. 215; R. v. Manchulenko, 2013 ONCA 543, 116 O.R. (3d) 721; R. v. Mack, 2014 SCC 58, [2014] 3 S.C.R. 3; R. v. Pino, 2016 ONCA 389, 130 O.R. (3d) 561; R. v. Lewis, 2007 ONCA 349, 86 O.R. (3d) 46; R. v. Woods, 2008 ONCA 713; R. v. Hamilton, 2017 ONCA 179, 347 C.C.C. (3d) 1......
-
R. v. Tim, 2022 SCC 12
...980; R. v. Plaha (2004), 189 O.A.C. 376; R. v. Mian, 2014 SCC 54, [2014] 2 S.C.R. 689; R. v. Goldhart, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 463; R. v. Pino, 2016 ONCA 389, 130 O.R. (3d) 561; R. v. Lichtenwald, 2020 SKCA 70, 388 C.C.C. (3d) 377; R. v. Reilly, 2020 BCCA 369, 397 C.C.C. (3d) 219, aff’d 2021 SCC 38......
-
R. v. Williams, 2018 ONSC 3654
...nexus between the two: Regina v. Cuff, 2018 ONCA 276, at para. 30; Regina v. Blais, 2018 QCCA 713, at paras. 34-43; Regina v. Pino, 2016 ONCA 389, at paras. 50-70; Regina v. Daley, 2016 ONCA 564, at paras. 10-11; Fountain, at paras. 38-49. That said, “the presence and strength of [a] causal......
-
Court Of Appeal Summaries (June 10-14)
...ss.10(b) and 24(2), Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19, ss.7(1) and 5(2), R. v. Reid, 2016 ONCA 524, R. v. Pino, 2016 ONCA 389, R. v. Plaha (2004), 188 C.C.C. (3d) 289 (Ont. C.A.), R. v. Goldhart (1996), 107 C.C.C (3d) 481 (SCC), R. v. Lenhardt, 2019 ONCA 416, R. v. Grant......
-
ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL SUMMARIES (APRIL 16 – APRIL 20, 2018 )
...Code, s. 487, Telus Communications Company v. The Queen, 2013 SCC 16, R. v. Jones, 2017 SCC 60, R. v. Spencer, 2014 SCC 43, R. v. Pino, 2016 ONCA 389, R. v. Wittwer, 2008 SCC 33, R. v. Harris, 2007 ONCA 574, R. v. Grant, 2009 SCC 32 R v. C.R.A., 2018 ONCA 388 [Benotto, Roberts and Trotter J......
-
Ontario Court Of Appeal Summaries (April 16 April 20, 2018)
...Code, s. 487, Telus Communications Company v. The Queen, 2013 SCC 16, R. v. Jones, 2017 SCC 60, R. v. Spencer, 2014 SCC 43, R. v. Pino, 2016 ONCA 389, R. v. Wittwer, 2008 SCC 33, R. v. Harris, 2007 ONCA 574, R. v. Grant, 2009 SCC 32 R v. C.R.A., 2018 ONCA 388 [Benotto, Roberts and Trotter J......
-
Ontario Court Of Appeal Summaries (May 21 24, 2019)
...Circumstances, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom, ss 8 and 24(2) R v. Grant, 2009 SCC 32, R v. Godoy, [1999] 1 SCR 311, R v. Pino, 2016 ONCA 389, R v. Harrison, 2009 SCC 34, R v. Norman (1993), 26 CR (4th) 256 (ON CA), R v. Feeney, [1997] 2 SCR 13, R v. Caslake, [1998] 1 SCR 51, Hunter......
-
Improperly Obtained Evidence
...not obtained in violation of the Charter . 50 R v Goldhart (1996), 48 CR (4th) 297 (SCC) [ Goldhart ]. 51 R v Edwards (appeal by Pino) , 2016 ONCA 389 [ Edwards (appeal by Pino) ] at paras 56 and 72. Improperly Obtained Evidence 481 In considering whether a statement is tainted by an earlie......
-
Table of Cases
...Guide to the Law R v Piche, 2004 SKQB 48 ................................................................................. 160 R v Pino, 2016 ONCA 389 ................................................................................... 16 R v Pires, [2005] 3 SCR 343................................
-
Nature of the Interaction Between Police and Individuals
...]. See also Mooiman , above note 72 at para 41. 211 R v Frieburg , 2013 MBCA 40. 212 See R v Labelle , 2016 ONCA 110 or R v Pino , 2016 ONCA 389. 213 R v Mohamad (2004), 69 OR (3d) 481 (CA). 214 In Stillman , above note 37 at para 29, it is noted that “the sole purpose of the arrest was to ......
-
Low Hanging Fruit . . . and Beyond: Canada's Drug Laws Meet the Charter
...concept of “remoteness” in the context of a marijuana grow-op prosecution. 84 R v Wittwer , [2008] 2 SCR 235 at para 21. 85 R v Pino , 2016 ONCA 389 at para 72; the relevant judicial authorities and academic contributions are extensively reviewed at paras 34–78. 86 [2009] 2 SCR 353. Grant i......