R. v. Plaha (B.), (2004) 189 O.A.C. 376 (CA)

• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Judge: Catzman, Doherty and Armstrong, JJ.A.
• Citation: (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
• Date: 12 March 2004

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.