R. v. R.J.S., (1995) 78 O.A.C. 161 (SCC)

• Judge: Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: February 02, 1995
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1995), 78 O.A.C. 161 (SCC)

R. v. R.J.S. (1995), 78 O.A.C. 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]

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

R.J.S. (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) and Attorney General of Canada, Attorney General of Quebec, Attorney General of Manitoba, Attorney General of British Columbia, Attorney General for Saskatchewan and Attorney General for Alberta (intervenors)

(23581)

Indexed As: R. v. R.J.S.

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest,  L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier,  Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.

February 2, 1995.

Summary:

Two youths were separately tried for the same offence. R.J.S. was acquitted after the trial judge quashed a subpoena requiring the other youth to testify. The Crown appealed. The sole issue was whether a person charged with an offence could be compelled to give evidence against another person charged with the same offence.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a judg­ment reported 61 O.A.C. 395, allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial. The court held that the separately tried youth was a compellable witness at the trial of R.J.S. R.J.S. appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal. The separately tried youth was compellable and the statutory compul­sion to testify deprived the youth of his right to liberty under s. 7 of the Charter, but the deprivation, in light of immunity protection, was in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

Civil Rights - Topic 644.1

Liberty - Limitations on - Compelled testimony - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4305.1 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 3160

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal proceedings - Right to remain silent - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4305.1 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 4305.1

Protection against self-incrimination - Compellability of separately tried co-accused - The Supreme Court of Canada held that a person separately charged with an offence was compellable as a witness in the criminal trial of another person charged with the same offence - Iacobucci, J. (La Forest, Cory and Major, JJ., concurring), stated that the principle against self-in­crimination was satisfied by "simple-use immunity" afforded by s. 13 of the Char­ter, plus a residual "derivative-use im­munity" in respect of evidence which could not have been discovered but for the compelled testimony - Lamer, C.J.C., agreed with Iacobucci, J., but would afford such a witness further protection by way of exemption from compellability in ap­propriate circumstances - Sopinka, Mc­Lachlin, L'Heureux-Dubé and Gonthier, JJ., rejected Iacobucci, J.'s, "derivative-use immunity" approach, preferring the ex­emption from compellability approach.

Civil Rights - Topic 4462

Protection against self-incrimination - Use of incriminating evidence in other pro­ceedings - Derivative evidence - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4305.1 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 4462

Protection against self-incrimination - Use of incriminating evidence in other pro­ceedings - Derivative evidence - The Supreme Court of Canada held that a person separately charged with an offence was compellable as a witness in the crimi­nal trial of another person charged with the same offence - Section 13 of the Charter precluded the person's testimony from being used against him at his later trial (simple-use immunity) - The court stated that "deriva­tive evidence which could not have been obtained, or the significance of which could not have been appreciated but for the testimony of the witness, ought gen­erally to be excluded under s. 7 of the Charter in the interests of trial fairness. Such evidence, although not created by the accused and thus not self-incriminatory by definition, is self-incriminatory nonethe­less because the evidence could not other­wise have become part of the Crown's case. To this extent, the witness must be protected against assisting the Crown in creating a case to meet." - See paragraphs 156 to 183.

Civil Rights - Topic 8508

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Enforcement - Who may apply - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4821 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4821

Appeals - Indictable offences - Right of appeal - General - Two youths were to be separately tried for the same offence - The first youth was acquitted after the trial judge quashed a subpoena compelling the other youth to testify - The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal and held that the youth was a compellable witness - The first youth appealed - The Crown claimed that he had no right of appeal, because he was asserting rights and privileges personal to the subpoenaed youth - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the youth could properly raise a question of law based on the compellability of the youth as a witness, where the question was initially raised by the Crown before the Court of Appeal - See paragraphs 197 to 200.

Criminal Law - Topic 5475

Evidence and witnesses - Joint or separate trials - Competence and compellability of co-accused - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4305.1 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. T.L.C., [1994] 2 S.C.R. 1012; 171 N.R. 151; 48 B.C.A.C. 81; 78 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Praisoody (1990), 1 O.R.(3d) 606 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 7].

Thomson Newspapers Ltd. v. Director of Investigation and Research, Combines Investigation Act et al., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 425; 106 N.R. 161; 39 O.A.C. 161; 54 C.C.C.(3d) 417; 76 C.R.(3d) 129; 67 D.L.R.(4th) 161; 29 C.P.R.(3d) 97; 47 C.R.R. 1, refd to. [para. 9].

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. 9].

R. v. Morra (1992), 11 O.R.(3d) 202 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 13].

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. 22].

R. v. Vaillancourt, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 636; 81 N.R. 115; 10 Q.A.C. 161; 68 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 281; 209 A.P.R. 281; 60 C.R.(3d) 289; 39 C.C.C.(3d) 118, refd to. [para. 22].

Singh et al. v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 177; 58 N.R. 1; 14 C.R.R. 13; 12 Admin. L.R. 137; 17 D.L.R.(4th) 422, refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 713; 71 N.R. 161; 19 O.A.C. 239; 30 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 55 C.R.(3d) 193; 35 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 28 C.R.R. 1, refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Edwards Books and Art Ltd. - see R. v. Videoflicks.

Di Iorio and Fontaine v. Warden of Com­mon Jail of the City of Montreal et al., [1978] 1 S.C.R. 152; 8 N.R. 361, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Dubois, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 350; 62 N.R. 50; 66 A.R. 202; [1986] 1 W.W.R. 193; 41 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97; 48 C.R.(3d) 193; 22 C.C.C.(3d) 513; 23 D.L.R.(4th) 503; 18 C.R.R. 1, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. M.B.P., [1994] 1 S.C.R. 555; 165 N.R. 321; 70 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 37].

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. 37].

R. v. Fosty and Gruenke, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 263; 130 N.R. 161; 75 Man.R.(2d) 112; 6 W.A.C. 112; 67 C.C.C.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 44].

John Lilburn and John Wharton for Print­ing and Publishing Seditious Books, The Trial of (1637), 3 How. State Tr. 1316, refd to. [para. 47].

Lamb v. Munster (1882), 10 Q.B.D. 110, refd to. [para. 49].

Bell v. Klein, [1954] 1 D.L.R. 225 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 49].

Brown v. Hooper (1885), 3 Man. R. 86 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Pantelidis, [1943] 1 D.L.R. 569 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. Marcoux, [1976] 1 S.C.R. 763; 4 N.R. 64, refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. Rothman, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 640; 35 N.R. 485; 59 C.C.C.(2d) 30, refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. Fee (1887), 13 O.R. 590 (Ch. Div.), refd to. [para. 56].

Gosselin v. The King (1903), 33 S.C.R. 255, refd to. [para. 57].

Keable and Quebec (Attorney General) v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [1979] 1 S.C.R. 218; 24 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 62].

Ibrahim v. The King, [1914] A.C. 599 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Whittle (D.J.), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 914; 170 N.R. 16; 73 O.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Wray, [1971] S.C.R. 272, refd to. [para. 66].

Canada v. Amway Corp. et al., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 21; 91 N.R. 18, refd to. [para. 78].

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. 79].

R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326; 130 N.R. 277; 120 A.R. 161; 8 W.A.C. 161; 68 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 80].

R. v. Egger (J.H.), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 451; 153 N.R. 272; 141 A.R. 81; 46 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 80].

Westinghouse Electric Corp. Uranium Contract Litigation M.D.L. Docket No. 235 (No. 2), Re, [1977] 3 All E.R. 717 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 95].

R. v. Whyte, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 3; 86 N.R. 328; 64 C.R.(3d) 123; 6 M.V.R.(2d) 138; [1988] 5 W.W.R. 26; 42 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 29 B.C.L.R.(2d) 273; 51 D.L.R.(4th) 481; 35 C.R.R. 1, refd to. [para. 97].

R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697; 117 N.R. 1; 114 A.R. 81; 1 C.R.(4th) 129; 77 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193; [1991] 2 W.W.R. 1; 61 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 3 C.R.R.(2d) 193, refd to. [para. 97].

R. v. Chaulk and Morrissette, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1303; 119 N.R. 161; 69 Man.R.(2d) 161; [1991] 2 W.W.R. 385; 62 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 1 C.R.R.(2d) 1; 2 C.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 97].

R. v. Romeo, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 86; 119 N.R. 309; 110 N.B.R.(2d) 57; 276 A.P.R. 57, refd to. [para. 97].

R. v. Ratti, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 68; 120 N.R. 91; 44 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 97].

R. v. Downey and Reynolds, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 10; 136 N.R. 266; 125 A.R. 342; 14 W.A.C. 342; 72 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 97].

Counselman v. Hitchcock (1892), 142 U.S. 547, refd to. [para. 101].

R. v. Lyons, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 309; 80 N.R. 161; 82 N.S.R.(2d) 271; 207 A.P.R. 271; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 105].

R. v. Beare; R. v. Higgins, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 387; 88 N.R. 205; 71 Sask.R. 1; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 57; [1989] 1 W.W.R. 97; 66 C.R.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 105].

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. 105].

R. v. Staranchuk (1982), 3 C.C.C.(3d) 138 (Sask. Q.B.), revd. (1983), 28 Sask.R. 45; 8 C.C.C.(3d) 150 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 109].

R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; [1985] 3 W.W.R. 481; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 321; 37 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97; 85 C.L.L.C. 14,203; 13 C.R.R. 64, refd to. [para. 114].

Batary v. Saskatchewan (Attorney Gen­eral), [1965] S.C.R. 465, refd to. [para. 115].

Regan, Re, [1939] 2 D.L.R. 135 (N.S.C.A.), refd to. [para. 117].

Faber v. Sa Majesté la Reine et le Procureur général et Ministre de la Jus­tice de la Province du Québec et autres, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 9; 6 N.R. 1 (Eng.); 8 N.R. 29 (Fr.), refd to. [para. 119].

R. v. Scorey (1748), 1 Leach 43; 168 E.R. 124, refd to. [para. 121].

Wakley v. Cooke (1849), 4 Ex. 511; 154 E.R. 1316, refd to. [para. 121].

Transpacific Tours Ltd. v. Canada (Com­bines Investigation Act Director of In­vestigation and Research) (1985), 24 C.C.C.(3d) 103 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 128].

Haywood Securities Inc. v. Inter-Tech Resource Group Inc. (1985), 24 D.L.R.(4th) 724 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 128].

Restrictive Trade Practices Commission et al. v. Irvine et al., [1987] 1 S.C.R. 181; 74 N.R. 33, refd to. [para. 142].

R. v. Wigglesworth, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 541; 81 N.R. 161; 61 Sask.R. 105; 45 D.L.R.(3d) 235; [1988] 1 W.W.R. 193; 60 C.R.(3d) 193; 28 Admin. L.R. 294; 32 C.R.R. 219; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 385, refd to. [para. 147].

R. v. Welton (1986), 29 C.C.C.(3d) 226 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 148].

R. v. Zurlo (1990), 57 C.C.C.(3d) 407 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 148].

R. v. Power (E.), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 601; 165 N.R. 241; 117 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 269; 365 A.P.R. 269, refd to. [para. 150].

R. v. Crooks (1982), 39 O.R.(2d) 193 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 150].

R. v. Mazur (1986), 1 Y.R. 13; 27 C.C.C.(3d) 359 (B.C.C.A.), leave to appeal refused, [1986] 1 S.C.R. xi; 68 N.R. 240, refd to. [para. 150].

Kastigar v. United States (1972), 406 U.S. 441, refd to. [para. 154].

Attorney General v. Kelly (1916), 28 D.L.R. 409 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 163].

R. v. Simpson, [1943] 3 D.L.R. 355 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 163].

Ginsberg, Re (1917), 38 D.L.R. 261 (Ont. App. Div.), refd to. [para. 164].

R. v. Kuldip, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 618; 114 N.R. 284; 43 O.A.C. 341, refd to. [para. 164].

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. 168].

R. v. Pohoretsky, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 945; 75 N.R. 1; 47 Man.R.(2d) 295; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 398, refd to. [para. 172].

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. 173].

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. 174].

R. v. Wise, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 527; 133 N.R. 161; 51 O.A.C. 351; 70 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 11 C.R.(4th) 253; 8 C.R.R.(2d) 53, refd to. [para. 175].

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. 176].

R. v. Colarasso, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 20; 162 N.R. 321; 69 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 177].

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. 179].

R. v. Sweitzer, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 949; 42 N.R. 550; 37 A.R. 294, refd to. [para. 189].

R. v. Bartle (K.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 173; 172 N.R. 1; 74 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 195].

R. v. Vézeau, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 277; 8 N.R. 235; 28 C.C.C.(2d) 81; 66 D.L.R.(3d) 418, refd to. [para. 201].

R. v. Morin, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 345; 88 N.R. 161; 30 O.A.C. 81; 44 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 66 C.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 201].

R. v. Kowlyk, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 59; 86 N.R. 195; 55 Man.R.(2d) 1; 43 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 202].

O'Hara and Kirkbride v. British Columbia, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 591; 80 N.R. 127, refd to. [para. 210].

R. v. Spencer (1983), 145 D.L.R.(3d) 344 (Ont. C.A.), affd. [1985] 2 S.C.R. 278; 62 N.R. 81; 11 O.A.C. 207, refd to. [para. 216].

MacKeigan, J.A. et al. v. Royal Commis­sion (Marshall Inquiry), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 796; 100 N.R. 81; 94 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 247 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 219].

R. v. Moran (1987), 21 O.A.C. 257; 36 C.C.C.(3d) 225 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 219].

Mulroney v. Coates (1986), 54 O.R.(2d) 353 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 219].

Hammond v. Commonwealth of Australia (1982), 152 C.L.R. 188, refd to. [para. 223].

R. v. Pipe (1966), 51 Cr. App. R. 17 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 225].

R. v. Primeau (D.J.) (1993), 108 Sask.R. 193 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 228].

R. v. Smith (A.L.), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 915; 139 N.R. 323; 55 O.A.C. 321; 75 C.C.C.(3d) 257; 94 D.L.R.(4th) 590; 15 C.R.(4th) 133, refd to. [para. 231].

Johnson v. R. (1991), 44 O.A.C. 249; 64 C.C.C.(3d) 20 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 233].

R. v. Duvivier - see Johnson v. R.

R. v. Hogan, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 574; 2 N.R. 343; 9 N.S.R.(2d) 145, refd to. [para. 254].

R. v. Potvin, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 525; 93 N.R. 42; 21 Q.A.C. 258; 47 C.C.C.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 260].

R. v. Conway, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1659; 96 N.R. 241; 34 O.A.C. 165; 49 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 70 C.R.(3d) 209, refd to. [para. 265].

R. v. Prosper, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 236; 172 N.R. 161; 133 N.S.R.(2d) 321; 380 A.P.R. 321, refd to. [para. 272].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Dagenais et al., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835; 175 N.R. 1; 76 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 275].

R. v. Strachan, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 980; 90 N.R. 273; [1989] 1 W.W.R. 385; 46 C.C.C.(3d) 479; 67 C.R.(3d) 87; 56 D.L.R.(4th) 673; 37 C.R.R. 335, refd to. [para. 277].

Ruben v. R. (1983), 24 Man.R.(2d) 100 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 280].

A.T. & T. Istel Ltd. v. Tully, [1992] 3 All E.R. 523 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 281].

Cunningham v. Canada, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 143; 151 N.R. 161; 62 O.A.C. 243, refd to. [para. 296].

Operation Dismantle Inc. et al. v. Canada et al., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 441; 59 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 313].

Statutes Noticed:

Canada Evidence Act, S.C. 1893, c. 31, sect. 4 [para. 57].

Canada Evidence Act, An Act to Amend, S.C. 1906, c. 10, sect. 1 [para. 57].

Canadian Bill of Rights, R.S.C. 1985, App. III, generally [para. 299].

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 7, sect. 11(c), sect. 11(d), sect. 13 [para. 6]; sect. 24(2) [para. 170].

Combines Investigation Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-23, sect. 17 [para. 25].

Competition Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-34, generally [para. 211].

Constitution Act, 1867, sect. 91(27) [para. 116].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 348(1)(b) [para. 2]; sect. 686(4)(b)(i) [para. 6].

Criminal Evidence Act, 1898 (U.K.), 61 & 62 Vict., c. 36, sect. 1 [para. 57].

Evidence Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-5, sect. 5 [para. 6].

Young Offenders Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. Y-1, sect. 2(1), sect. 5(1) [para. 2]; sect. 27(1) [para. 6].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Alberta, Law Reform Institute, Report No. 62, Proposals for the Reform of the Public Inquiries Act, 1992, generally [para. 142].

Beaudoin, G.A., and Ratushny, E., The Canadian Charter of Rights and Free­doms (1989), p. 451 [para. 92].

Canada, Canadian Committee of Correc­tions, Towards Unity: Criminal Justice and Corrections (1969), p. 68 [para. 61].

Canada, Commission of Inquiry Concern­ing Certain Activities of the Royal Ca­nadian Mounted Police, Second Report, Freedom and Security under the Law, vol. 2 (1981), generally [para. 261].

Canada, Federal/Provincial Task Force on Uniform Rules of Evidence, Report of the Federal/Provincial Task Force on the Uniform Rules of Evidence (1982), pp. 233 [para. 261]; 439 [para. 61].

Canada, Law Reform Commission, Report on Evidence (1975), pp. 22 [para. 261]; 29, 78 [para. 197].

Canada, Law Reform Commission, Work­ing Paper No. 13, Advisory and Investigatory Commissions (1979), gen­erally [para. 139].

Canada, Law Reform Commission, Work­ing Paper No. 17, Commissions of Inquiry: A New Act (1977), pp. 36, 37 [para. 127].

Canada, The Canadian Constitution 1980, Proposed Resolution respecting the Con­stitution of Canada (1980), p. 18 [para. 109].

Cross on Evidence (7th Ed. 1990), p. 210 [para. 224].

Elman, Bruce P., Returning to Wray: Some Recent Cases on Section 24 of the Char­ter (1988), 26 Alta. L. Rev. 604, pp. 606, 607 [para. 299].

Ghio, R.S., The Iran-Contra Prosecutions and the Failure of Use Immunity (1992), 45 Stan. L. Rev. 229, generally [para. 238].

Greer, Steven, The Right to Silence: A Review of the Current Debate (1990), 53 Modern L. Rev. 709, generally [para. 62].

Haines, Edson, Future of the Law of Evi­dence -- The Right to Remain Silent -- Two Views (View 1), in Roger E. Sal­hany and Robert J. Carter, Studies in Canadian Criminal Evidence, eds. (1972), p. 321 [para. 62].

Henkel, William, Competency, Compellability and Coroners' Courts (1970), 12 Crim. L.Q. 166, generally [para. 116].

Heydon, J.D., Statutory Restrictions on the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination (1971), 87 Law. Q. Rev. 214, pp. 215, 216 [para. 60].

Hor, Michael, The Privilege against Self-Incrimination and Fairness to the Accused, [1993] Singapore J. Legal Stud. 35, p. 35 [para. 87].

MacNair, M.R.T., The Early Development of the Privilege Against Self-Incrimi­nation (1990), 10 Oxford J. Legal Stud. 67, pp. 78, 79 [para. 74].

Maloney, Arthur, and Tomlinson, Paul V., Future of the Law of Evidence -- The Right to Remain Silent -- Two Views (View 2), in Roger E. Salhany and Robert J. Carter eds., Studies in Cana­dian Criminal Evidence (1972), p. 321 [para. 62].

Mewett, Alan W., Law Enforcement and the Conflict of Values (1970), 12 Crim. L.Q. 179, pp. 186 [para. 43]; 187 [para. 74]; 188 [para. 73]; 198, 199 [para. 101].

Mewett, Alan W., Prejudicing an Accused (1992), 34 Crim. L.Q. 385, p. 385 [para. 286].

Mewett, Alan W., The Right to Silence (1990), 32 Crim. L.Q. 273, p. 274 [para. 35].

Murphy, Jerome A., The Aftermath of the Iran-Contra Trials: The Uncertain Status of Derivative-Use Immunity (1992), 51 Md. L. Rev. 1011, generally [para. 238].

Ontario, Law Reform Commission, Report on Public Inquiries (1992), p. 73 [para. 122].

Ontario, Law Reform Commission, Report on the Law of Evidence (1976), p. 94 [para. 261].

Paciocco, David M., Charter Principles and Proof in Criminal Cases (1987), pp. 539 [para. 40]; 544 [para. 86]; 582, 583 [para. 256].

Ratushny, Ed, Is There a Right Against Self-Incrimination in Canada? (1973), 19 McGill L.J. 1, pp. 30 [para. 57]; 58 [para. 120].

Ratushny, Ed, Self-Incrimination in the Canadian Criminal Process (1979), pp. 2 [para. 39]; 7 [para. 69]; 21 [para. 137]; 35, 40 [para. 144]; 54 [para. 250]; 98 [para. 65]; 169 [para. 74]; 173 [para. 52]; 179 [para. 87]; 362 [para. 118]; 393, 394 [para. 125].

Ratushny, Ed, Self-Incrimination: Nailing the Coffin Shut (1978), 20 Crim. L.Q. 312, generally [para. 86].

Ratushny, Ed, The Role of the Accused in the Criminal Process, in Gérald A. Beaudoin and Ed Ratushny, eds., The Canadian Charter of Rights and Free­doms (2nd Ed. 1989), pp. 453 [para. 92]; 483, 484 [para. 134]; 487 [para. 101].

Robardet, Patrick, Should We Abandon the Adversarial Model in Favour of the Inquisitorial Model in Commissions of Inquiry? In A. Paul Pross, Innis Christie and John A. Yogis, eds., Commissions of Inquiry (1990), p. 111 [para. 142].

Salhany, Roger E., and Carter, Robert J., Studies in Canadian Criminal Evidence (1972), p. 321 [para. 62].

Schiff, Stanley A., Evidence in the Litiga­tion Process (4th Ed. 1993), vol. 2, pp. 1343, 1344 [para. 56].

Sharpe, Robert J., Injunctions and Specific Performance (2nd Ed. 1993), §2.390 [para. 315].

Sopinka, John, Sidney N. Lederman and Alan W. Bryant, The Law of Evidence in Canada (1992), p. 407 [para. 182].

Stratas, David, The Charter of Rights in Litigation: Direction from the Supreme Court of Canada (1990), vol. 1, p. 17-2.1 [para. 35].

Watson, Jack, Talking About the Right to Remain Silent (1991), 34 Crim. L.Q. 106, p. 117 [para. 95].

Wigmore on Evidence (McNaughton Rev. 1961), vol. 8, § 2250, p. 269 [para. 46]; § 2251, pp. 296, 297 [para. 69]; § 2252, p. 318 [para. 72]; § 2260, pp. 371, 372 [para. 50]; §2266, pp. 401, 402 [para. 65].

Counsel:

Alan D. Gold, for the appellant;

Michal Fairburn and Scott Hutchison, for the respondent;

S. Ronald Fainstein, Q.C., and Robert J. Frater, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of Canada;

Jacques Gauvin and Gilles Laporte, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of Que­bec;

Marva J. Smith, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of Manitoba;

George H. Copley, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of British Columbia;

Graeme G. Mitchell, for the intervenor, the Attorney General for Saskatchewan;

Paul C. Bourque, for the intervenor, the Attorney General for Alberta.

Solicitors of Record:

Gold & Fuerst, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant;

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

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

Department of Justice, Ste-Foy, Quebec, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of Quebec;

Department of Justice, Winnipeg, Mani­toba, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of Manitoba;

Ministry of the Attorney General, Victoria, British Columbia, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of British Columbia;

W. Brent Cotter, Regina, Saskatchewan, for the intervenor, the Attorney General for Saskatchewan;

Department of the Attorney General, Ed­monton, Alberta, for the intervenor, the Attorney General for Alberta.

This appeal was heard on February 28 to March 1, 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 Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official lan­guages on February 2, 1995, and the follow­ing opinions were filed:

Iacobucci, J. (La Forest, Cory and Major, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 205;

Lamer, C.J.C. - see paragraphs 206 to 213;

Sopinka, J. (McLachlin, J., concurring) - see paragraphs 214 to 241;

L'Heureux-Dubé, J. (Gonthier, J., con­curring) - see paragraphs 242 to 328.