R. v. Plaha (B.), (2004) 189 O.A.C. 376 (CA)
Judge | Catzman, Doherty and Armstrong, JJ.A. |
Court | Court of Appeal (Ontario) |
Case Date | March 12, 2004 |
Jurisdiction | Ontario |
Citations | (2004), 189 O.A.C. 376 (CA);2004 CanLII 21043 (NS CA);2004 CanLII 21043 (ON CA);188 CCC (3d) 289;24 CR (6th) 360;[2004] CarswellOnt 3424;[2004] OJ No 3484 (QL);123 CRR (2d) 18;189 OAC 376 |
R. v. Plaha (B.) (2004), 189 O.A.C. 376 (CA)
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite: [2004] O.A.C. TBEd. AU.023
Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) v. Baljinder Plaha (appellant)
(C35157)
Indexed As: R. v. Plaha (B.)
Ontario Court of Appeal
Catzman, Doherty and Armstrong, JJ.A.
August 26, 2004.
Summary:
The accused appealed his conviction for second degree murder. He had made several statements to the police in the 14 hours following the homicide. The trial judge excluded all of the statements except one group of statements. The accused argued that he erred in law in not excluding those statements.
The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction and ordered a new trial.
Civil Rights - Topic 8368
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - The accused was convicted of second degree murder - He had made several statements to the police during a 14 hour period while in custody - The trial judge found that three groups of statements were obtained by a breach of the accused's s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel (obtained before he consulted counsel) and excluded them under s. 24(2) of the Charter - The trial judge held that a subsequent group of statements (fourth group of statements), obtained six and one-half hours later, after the accused had consulted counsel, were not connected to the prior breaches under s. 10(b) and were admissible under s. 24(2) - The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the accused's appeal - The fourth group of statements should have been excluded - They were closely connected, both temporally and contextually, to the earlier Charter breaches and were part of the same interrogation process - Admission of this conscriptive evidence could bring the administration of justice into disrepute - See paragraphs 41 to 63.
Cases Noticed:
R. v. L.R.I. and E.T., [1993] 4 S.C.R. 504; 159 N.R. 363; 37 B.C.A.C. 48; 60 W.A.C. 48; 86 C.C.C.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 42].
R. v. Goldhart (W.), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 463; 198 N.R. 321; 92 O.A.C. 161; 107 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 45].
R. v. Caputo (E.) (1997), 98 O.A.C. 30; 114 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 46].
R. v. Ricketts (D.) (2000), 131 O.A.C. 195; 144 C.C.C.(3d) 152 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 46].
R. v. Robinson (C.L.) (2000), 133 B.C.A.C. 98; 217 W.A.C. 98; 142 C.C.C.(3d) 521 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 46].
R. v. McIntosh (C.) (1999), 128 O.A.C. 69; 141 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (2000), 260 N.R. 397; 141 O.A.C. 197; 146 C.C.C.(3d) vi (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 48].
R. v. D.R. (1994), 168 N.R. 4; 71 O.A.C. 76; 89 C.C.C.(3d) 576 (S.C.C.), reving. (1993), 65 O.A.C. 145; 84 C.C.C.(3d) 126 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 53].
R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 57].
R. v. Bartle (K.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 173; 172 N.R. 1; 74 O.A.C. 161; 92 C.C.C.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 59].
R. v. Dolynchuk (E.N.) (2004), 184 Man.R.(2d) 71; 318 W.A.C. 71; 184 C.C.C.(3d) 214, refd to. [para. 59].
R. v. Harper, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 343; 172 N.R. 91; 97 Man.R.(2d) 1; 79 W.A.C. 1; 92 C.C.C.(3d) 423, refd to. [para. 62].
Counsel:
David E. Harris, for the appellant;
Roger A. Pinnock, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard on March 12, 2004, before Catzman, Doherty and Armstrong, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. Doherty, J.A., delivered the following decision for the court on August 26, 2004.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
R. v. Briscoe (M.E.), 2015 ABCA 2
...235; 375 N.R. 217; 255 B.C.A.C. 1; 430 W.A.C. 1; 2008 SCC 33, refd to. [para. 49]. R. v. Wittwer - see R. v. D.H.W. R. v. Plaha (B.) (2004), 189 O.A.C. 376 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 49]. R. v. Goldhart (W.), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 463; 198 N.R. 321; 92 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 49]. R. v. Simon (S......
-
R. v. Sinclair (T.T.), (2010) 293 B.C.A.C. 36 (SCC)
...between the breach and the subsequent statement may be 'temporal, contextual, causal or a combination of the three': R. v. Plaha (2004), 189 O.A.C. 376, at para. 45. A connection that is merely 'remote' or 'tenuous' will not suffice: R. v. Goldhart , [1996] 2 S.C.R. 463, at para. 40; Plaha ......
-
R. v. Lafrance, 2022 SCC 32
...between the breach and [the evidence obtained] may be ‘temporal, contextual, causal or a combination of the three’: R. v. Plaha (2004), 189 O.A.C. 376, at para. 45. A connection that is merely ‘remote’ or ‘tenuous’ will not suffice.” The requisite connection must be shown before a court con......
-
R. v. Beaver, 2022 SCC 54
... 2019 BCPC 127 ; R. v. Rauch, 2022 BCPC 117 ; R. v. Daley, 2015 ONSC 7367 ; R. v. Broyles, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 595 ; R. v. Plaha (2004), 189 O.A.C. 376; R. v. Strachan, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 980 ; R. v. McSweeney, 2020 ONCA 2 , 451 C.R.R. (2d) 357 ; R. v. Lauriente, 2010 BCCA 72 , 283 B.C.A.C......
-
R. v. Zacharias, 2023 SCC 30
... R. v. Plaha (2004), 188 C.C.C. (3d) 289; R. v. Grant, 2009 SCC 32, [2009] 2 S.C.R. 353; R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; R. v. Simmons, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 495; R. v. Le, 2019 S......
-
R. v. Sinclair (T.T.), (2010) 406 N.R. 1 (SCC)
...between the breach and the subsequent statement may be 'temporal, contextual, causal or a combination of the three': R. v. Plaha (2004), 189 O.A.C. 376, at para. 45. A connection that is merely 'remote' or 'tenuous' will not suffice: R. v. Goldhart , [1996] 2 S.C.R. 463, at para. 40; Plaha ......
-
R. v. Briscoe (M.E.), 2015 ABCA 2
...235; 375 N.R. 217; 255 B.C.A.C. 1; 430 W.A.C. 1; 2008 SCC 33, refd to. [para. 49]. R. v. Wittwer - see R. v. D.H.W. R. v. Plaha (B.) (2004), 189 O.A.C. 376 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 49]. R. v. Goldhart (W.), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 463; 198 N.R. 321; 92 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 49]. R. v. Simon (S......
-
R. v. Sinclair (T.T.), (2010) 293 B.C.A.C. 36 (SCC)
...between the breach and the subsequent statement may be 'temporal, contextual, causal or a combination of the three': R. v. Plaha (2004), 189 O.A.C. 376, at para. 45. A connection that is merely 'remote' or 'tenuous' will not suffice: R. v. Goldhart , [1996] 2 S.C.R. 463, at para. 40; Plaha ......
-
Court Of Appeal Summaries (June 10-14)
...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, 2009 SCC 32, R. v. Rover, 201......
-
Court Of Appeal Summaries (January 27 January 31, 2020)
...Drug Offences, Right to Counsel, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 10(b), 24(2), R. v. G.T.D., 2018 SCC 7, R. v. Plaha (2004), 188 C.C.C. (3d) 289 (ONCA), R. v. Grant, 2009 SCC 32 R. v. A.V., 2020 ONCA 58 (Publication Ban) Keywords: Criminal Law, Sexual Interference, Sexual Exploi......
-
Self-Incrimination
...the exclusion of statements that have been derived from earlier statements obtained in violation of the Charter : see R v Plaha (2004), 188 CCC (3d) 289 (Ont CA), and R v Hamilton , 2017 ONCA 179 . 180 See R v D(M) , 2012 ONCA 841. 181 Singh , above note 139 at para 35. 182 R v Spencer , [2......
-
Table of cases
...377 R v Pinch, 2011 ONSC 5484 ............................................................................... 682 R v Plaha (2004), 188 CCC (3d) 289 (Ont CA).................................................. 426 R v Plant (1993), 24 CR (4th) 47 (SCC) ..............................................