R. v. Prosper, (1994) 172 N.R. 161 (SCC)

• Judge: Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: September 29, 1994
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1994), 172 N.R. 161 (SCC);JE 94-1529;23 CRR (2d) 239;380 APR 321;1994 CanLII 65 (SCC);[1994] CarswellNS 25;24 WCB (2d) 538;33 CR (4th) 85;6 MVR (3d) 181;92 CCC (3d) 353;[1994] SCJ No 72 (QL);[1994] ACS no 72;133 NSR (2d) 321;172 NR 161;118 DLR (4th) 154;[1994] 3 SCR 236

R. v. Prosper (1994), 172 N.R. 161 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Cyril Patrick Prosper (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) and The Charter Committee on Poverty Issues (intervenor)

(23178)

Indexed As: R. v. Prosper

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest,

L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier,

Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci

and Major, JJ.

September 29, 1994.

Summary:

An accused was acquitted of driving a motor vehicle while having an excessive blood-alcohol content. The trial judge excluded the breathalyzer certificate from evidence after ruling that the accused's s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel was denied. The Crown appealed.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Appeal Division, in a judgment reported 113 N.S.R.(2d) 156; 309 A.P.R. 156, allowed the appeal, substituted a conviction and remitted the matter for sentencing. The accused was properly advised of his right to counsel, was given a reasonable opportunity to exercise that right and had waived his right to coun­sel when submitting to the breathalyzer demand. The accused appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, L'Heureux-Dubé, La Forest, Gonthier and Major, JJ., dissenting, allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction and restored the acquittal. The accused's right to counsel was denied and the breathalyzer certificate was to be excluded from evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

Civil Rights - Topic 4602

Right to counsel - Denial of - Evidence taken inadmissible - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 4605 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 4605

Right to counsel - Denial of - Due to lack of time or opportunity - An accused given a breathalyzer demand was advised of his right to counsel, given a list of 12 legal aid lawyers and provided with a telephone in a cubicle - Unknown to the officer, legal aid lawyers were no longer accepting after-hours calls - Accordingly, free pre­liminary legal advice was not available through the system outside normal busi­ness hours - The accused was given a telephone book and asked whether he wished to call another lawyer - The accused could not afford a lawyer, so declined and provided a breath sample - One hour still remained before the two hour limitation period under s. 258(1)(d) of the Criminal Code expired - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the accused's s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel was denied, the accused did not validly waive his right to counsel and the breathalyzer certificate evidence was to be excluded under s. 24(2) to avoid bringing the administration of justice into disrepute - The accused was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to exercise his right to counsel.

Civil Rights - Topic 4605

Right to counsel - Denial of - Due to lack of time or opportunity - Lamer, C.J.C., of the Supreme Court of Canada (Sopinka, Cory and Iacobucci, JJ., concurring), stated that "in jurisdictions where a duty counsel service does exist but is unavailable at the precise time of detention, s. 10(b) does impose an obligation on state authorities to hold off from eliciting evidence from a detainee, provided that the detainee asserts his or her right to counsel and is reason­ably diligent in exercising it. In other words, the police must provide the detainee with what, in the circumstances, is a reasonable opportunity to contact duty counsel. While the holding off requirement does not apply in cases of urgency, the evidentiary presumption under s. 258(1)(d) of the Code ... is not a sufficiently 'urgent' factor to override a detainee's right to counsel under s. 10(b)" - McLachlin, L'Heureux-Dubé, La Forest and Gonthier, JJ., rejected the "holding off" obligation theory - Major, J., stated that "I have read and agree with the principles expressed by the Chief Justice but disagree in his con­clusion that the appeal be allowed".

Civil Rights - Topic 4612

Right to counsel - Waiver or abandonment of - [See second Civil Rights - Topic 4605 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 4612

Right to counsel - Waiver or abandonment of - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "given the importance of the right to counsel, I would also say with respect to waiver that once a detainee asserts the right there must be a clear indication that he or she has changed his or her mind, and the burden of establishing an unequivocal waiver will be on the Crown. ... Further, the waiver must be free and voluntary and it must not be the product of either direct or indirect compulsion. ... the standard required for an effective waiver of the right to counsel is very high ... a person who waives a right must know what he or she is giving up if the waiver is to be valid." - See paragraph 44.

Civil Rights - Topic 4617.1

Right to counsel - Notice of - Sufficiency of - [See second Civil Rights - Topic 4605 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 4633

Right to counsel - Appointment of counsel by the court or state - Where accused impecunious - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 10(b) of the Charter did not impose a substantive constitutional obligation on governments to ensure that duty counsel was available, or likewise, provide detainees with a guaranteed right to free and immediate preliminary legal advice upon request.

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 4605 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Matheson (R.N.) (1994), 172 N.R. 108; 123 Nfld. & P.E.I.R 271; 382 A.P.R. 271 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 1].

R. v. Bartle (K.) (1994), 172 N.R 1; 74 O.A.C. 161 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 1].

R. v. Pozniak (W.) (1994), 172 N.R. 72; 74 O.A.C. 232 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 1].

R. v. Harper (1994), 172 N.R. 91; 97 Man.R.(2d) 1; 79 W.A.C. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 1].

R. v. Brydges, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 190; 103 N.R. 282; 104 A.R. 124; 53 C.C.C.(3d) 330; 74 C.R.(3d) 129; [1990] 2 W.W.R. 220; 71 Alta. L.R.(2d) 145, refd to. [para. 7].

Reference Re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266; 48 C.R.(3d) 289; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 289; [1986] 1 W.W.R. 481, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Manninen, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1233; 76 N.R. 198; 21 O.A.C. 192; 34 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 41 D.L.R.(4th) 301; 58 C.R.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Evans, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 869; 124 N.R. 278; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 4 C.R.(4th) 144; 3 C.R.R.(2d) 315, refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Leclair and Ross, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 3; 91 N.R. 81; 31 O.A.C. 321; 46 C.C.C.(3d) 129; 67 C.R.(3d) 209; 37 C.R.R. 369, refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. M.B.P., [1994] 1 S.C.R. 555; 165 N.R. 321; 70 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Jones (S.), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 229; 166 N.R. 321; 43 B.C.A.C. 241; 69 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Hebert, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 151; 110 N.R. 1; [1990] 5 W.W.R. 1; 57 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 77 C.R.(3d) 145; 49 C.R.R. 114; 47 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Therens, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 613; 59 N.R. 122; 40 Sask.R. 122; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 655; [1985] 4 W.W.R. 286; 32 M.V.R. 153; 45 C.R.(3d) 97; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Clarkson, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 383; 66 N.R. 114; 69 N.B.R.(2d) 40; 177 A.P.R. 40; 50 C.R.(3d) 289; 25 C.C.C.(3d) 207; 26 D.L.R.(4th) 493; 19 C.R.R. 209, refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Strachan, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 980; 90 N.R. 273; 46 C.C.C.(3d) 479; 67 C.R.(3d) 87; 56 D.L.R.(4th) 673; 37 C.R.R. 335; [1989] 1 W.W.R. 385, refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Burnison (1979), 70 C.C.C.(2d) 38 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Deruelle, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 663; 139 N.R. 56; 114 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 313 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Askov, Hussey, Melo and Gugliotta, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1199; 113 N.R. 241; 42 O.A.C. 81; 59 C.C.C.(3d) 449; 79 C.R.(3d) 273; 49 C.R.R. 1; 74 D.L.R.(4th) 355; 75 O.R.(2d) 673, refd to. [para. 73].

R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276; 56 C.R.(3d) 193; [1987] 3 W.W.R. 699; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 508; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 28 C.R.R. 122; 13 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 75].

R. v. Dubois (G.) (1990), 27 Q.A.C. 241; 54 C.C.C.(3d) 166 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 79].

R. v. Robinson; R. v. Dolejs (1989), 100 A.R. 26; 73 C.R.(3d) 81 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 97].

Blaikie v. Quebec (Attorney General) et al., [1979] 2 S.C.R. 1016; 30 N.R. 225, refd to. [para. 98].

Residential Tenancies Act of Ontario, Re, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 714; 37 N.R. 158; 123 D.L.R.(3d) 554, refd to. [para. 98].

Reference Re Residential Tenancies Act of Ontario - see Residential Tenancies Act of Ontario, Re.

R. v. Tremblay, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 435; 79 N.R. 153; 25 O.A.C. 93; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 565; 45 D.L.R.(4th) 445; 60 C.R.(3d) 59; 32 C.R.R. 381; 2 M.V.R.(2d) 289, refd to. [para. 102].

R. v. Black, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 138; 98 N.R. 281; 93 N.S.R.(2d) 35; 242 A.P.R. 35; 50 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 70 C.R.(3d) 97; 47 C.R.R. 171, refd to. [para. 102].

R. v. Smith (J.L.), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 368; 99 N.R. 372, refd to. [para. 102].

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; 4 M.V.R.(2d) 170; 32 C.R.R. 193, refd to. [para. 109].

R. v. Thomsen, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 640; 84 N.R. 347; 27 O.A.C. 85; 63 C.R.(3d) 1; 40 C.C.C.(3d) 411; 4 M.V.R.(2d) 185; 32 C.R.R. 257, refd to. [para. 109].

R. v. Simmons, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 495; 89 N.R. 1; 30 O.A.C. 241; 66 C.R.(3d) 297; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 296, refd to. [para. 109].

R. v. Jacoy, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 548; 89 N.R. 61, refd to. [para. 109].

R. v. Debot, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1140; 102 N.R. 161; 37 O.A.C. 1; 52 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 73 C.R.(3d) 129; 45 C.R.R. 49, refd to. [para. 109].

R. v. Schmautz, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 398; 106 N.R. 81; [1990] 3 W.W.R. 193; 53 C.C.C.(3d) 556; 75 C.R.(3d) 129; 45 C.R.R. 245; 44 B.C.L.R.(2d) 273, refd to. [para. 109].

R. v. Elshaw, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 24; 128 N.R. 241; 3 B.C.A.C. 81; 7 W.A.C. 81; 67 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 59 B.C.L.R.(2d) 143, refd to. [para. 109].

R. v. Grant, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 139; 130 N.R. 250; 93 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 181; 292 A.P.R. 181; 67 C.C.C.(3d) 268, refd to. [para. 109].

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) 22; 21 M.V.R.(2d) 165, refd to. [para. 114].

R. v. Wilson, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1291; 108 N.R. 207; 107 A.R. 321; 56 C.C.C.(3d) 142, refd to. [para. 114].

R. v. Mellenthin, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 615; 144 N.R. 50; 135 A.R. 1; 33 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 114].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1 [para. 45]; sect. 7 [para. 30]; sect. 9 [para. 41]; sect. 10(b) [para. 18]; sect. 11(b) [para. 73]; sect. 24(1) [para. 70]; sect. 24(2) [para. 6].

Constitution Act, 1982, sect. 52 [para. 70].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 253(a), sect. 253(b) [para. 2]; sect. 254 [para. 117]; sect. 254(3)(a) [para. 106]; sect. 254(5) [para. 47]; sect. 258(1)(c) [para. 16]; sect. 258(1)(c)(ii) [para. 106]; sect. 258(1)(d) [para. 11]; sect. 503(1)(a) [para. 41].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canada, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Courts Program, Legal Aid in Canada: Description of Legal Aid Oper­ations (1993), p. 7.1 [para. 24].

Canada, Special Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons on the Constitution of Canada, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, Issue No. 46 (January 27, 1981), pp. 125, 127 to 135 [para. 97].

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (3rd Ed. 1992), p. 47-5 [para. 109].

Lafontaine, Y., Pourquoi au juste? (1992), 32 Actif 32, pp. 35, 36, 38 [para. 24].

Moore, Kathryn, Police Implementation of Supreme Court of Canada Charter Deci­sions: An Empirical Study (1992), 30 Osgoode Hall L.J. 547, p. 565 [para. 26].

Prairie Research Associates, Duty Counsel Systems: Summary Report (April 1993), p. 41 [para. 26].

Prairie Research Associates, Duty Counsel Systems: Technical Report (April 1993), pp. 4.94 to 4.95 [para. 23]; 5.28 [para. 26].

Counsel:

Roger A. Burrill and Vincent Calderhead, for the appellant;

John C. Pearson, for the respondent;

Mark Freiman, for the intervenor.

Solicitors of Record:

Nova Scotia Legal Aid, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, for the appellant;

Attorney General of Nova Scotia, Halifax, Nova Scotia, for the respondent;

McCarthy, Tétrault, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor.

This appeal was heard on March 2-3, 1994, before Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The judgment of the court was delivered in both official languages on September 29, 1994, and the following opinions were filed:

Lamer, C.J.C. (Sopinka, Cory and Iacobucci, JJ., concurring) - see para­graphs 1 to 65;

McLachlin, J. - see paragraphs 66 to 94;

L'Heureux-Dubé, J., dissenting - see paragraphs 95 to 115;

La Forest, J., dissenting - see paragraph 116;

Gonthier, J., dissenting - see paragraphs 117 to 118;

Major, J., dissenting - see paragraphs 119 to 123.