R. v. Stoddart, (1987) 20 O.A.C. 365 (CA)

• Judge: Morden, Robins and Tarnopolsky, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: July 15, 1987
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1987), 20 O.A.C. 365 (CA)

R. v. Stoddart (1987), 20 O.A.C. 365 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Her Majesty the Queen v. John Stoddart

Indexed As: R. v. Stoddart

Ontario Court of Appeal

Morden, Robins and Tarnopolsky, JJ.A.

July 15, 1987.

Summary:

The accused was convicted of sexual assault contrary to s. 246.3 of the Criminal Code and sentenced to five years' imprisonment. The accused appealed his conviction and sentence.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 3146

Trials, due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal proceedings - Jury selection - Charter, s. 11(d) - An accused challenged the constitutional validity of the jury selection procedure in the Criminal Code, ss. 562 and 563 - The accused argued that the procedure violated his s. 11(d) Charter right to a fair trial in that (1) the Crown had stand asides and more peremptory challenges than the accused, and (2) the accused had to declare his position respecting a juror before the Crown - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the jury selection procedure did not violate the accused's right to a fair trial - See paragraphs 35 to 44.

Civil Rights - Topic 5660.2

Equality and protection of the law - Particular cases - Where legislation favours Crown - Jury selection - An accused challenged the constitutional validity of the jury selection procedures in the Criminal Code, ss. 562 and 563 - He argued that because the Crown was treated more favourably than the accused, the accused was denied equality before the law, contrary to s. 15(1) of the Charter - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that (1) the Crown was not an "individual" with whom a comparison could be made to determine a s. 15(1) Charter violation and, alternatively, (2) the Crown and the accused were not similarly situated and therefore consideration of s. 15(1) was not necessary in this case - See paragraphs 22 to 33.

Civil Rights - Topic 8467

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Interrelationship among Charter rights - S. 7 v. ss. 8 to 14 - An accused challenged the constitutional validity of the jury selection procedure in the Criminal Code, ss. 562 and 563 - He argued that the favourable treatment afforded the Crown by these sections was contrary to s. 7 of the Charter (principles of fundamental justice) - The Ontario Court of Appeal refused to deal with the s. 7 argument where the problem was a s. 11(d) issue (right to a fair trial) - The court agreed that s. 7 should not be resorted to unless ss. 8 to 14 of the Charter were inapplicable - See paragraph 34.

Civil Rights - Topic 8305

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Persons protected - Crown - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the Crown is not an "individual" within the meaning of s. 15(1) of the Charter (equality before the law provision) - See paragraphs 22 to 33.

Criminal Law - Topic 4305

Procedure - Jury - General - An accused challenged the constitutional validity of the jury selection procedure in the Criminal Code, ss. 562 and 563 - He argued that the provisions were contrary to ss. 7, 11(d) and 15(1) of the Charter - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the procedure did not violate his right to a fair trial as guaranteed by s. 11(d) of the Charter - See paragraphs 35 to 44 - The court held that s. 15(1) was inapplicable where the Crown was the opposing party - See paragraphs 22 to 33 - The court also refused to consider whether the provisions of fended s. 7 of the Charter where the problem was a s. 11(d) issue - See paragraph 34.

Words and Phrases

Individual - The Ontario Court of Appeal discussed the word "individual" as it appeared in s. 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (equality before the law provision) - See paragraphs 22 to 33.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Vetrovec (1982), 41 N.R. 606; 67 C.C.C.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Sutton, [1970] 3 C.C.C. 152, dist. [para. 14].

R. v. Varga (1985), 7 O.A.C. 350; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 281, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Jargic (1977), 38 C.C.C.(2d) 232, refd to. [paras. 19, 41].

Surrey Credit Union v. Mendonca et al. (1985), 19 C.R.R. 230, refd to. [para. 25].

Mund v. Medicine Hat (1985), 67 A.R. 11 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 25].

Smith, Kline & French Laboratories Ltd. v. A.G. Canada (1985), 24 D.L.R.(4th) 321, refd to. [para. 25].

Re Homemade Winecrafts (Canada) Ltd. and A.-G. British Columbia et al. (1986), 26 D.L.R.(4th) 468 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 25].

Parkdale Hotel Ltd. v. Canada (Chief Electoral Officer) et al. (1986), 1 F.T.R. 190; 27 D.L.R.(4th) 19, refd to. [para. 25].

Aluminum Company of Canada Ltd. v. Ontario (Minister of the Environment) (1986), 16 O.A.C. 14; 55 O.R.(2d) 522 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 25].

K Mart Canada Ltd. v. Millmink Developments Ltd. et al., E K N M Investments Ltd., Third Party, A.G. Ontario, Intervenor (1986), 56 O.R.(2d) 422 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 25].

Dywidag Systems International Canada Ltd. v. Zutphen Brothers Construction Ltd. (1987), 76 N.S.R.(2d) 398; 189 A.P.R. 398, consd. [para. 27].

R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161; [1985] 3 W.W.R. 481; 16 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 321, refd to. [para. 28].

Re Baker and The Queen (1986), 26 C.C.C.(3d) 123, agreed with [para. 29].

Kurolak et al. v. Saskatchewan (Minister of Highways and Transportation) (1986), 48 Sask.R. 92; 28 D.L.R.(4th) 273, agreed with [para. 30].

Re Bradley et al. and The Queen (1975), 24 C.C.C.(2d) 482, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. McDonald (1985), 10 O.A.C. 321; 21 C.C.C.(3d) 330, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. R.L. (1986), 14 O.A.C. 318; 26 C.C.C.(3d) 417, refd to. [para. 33].

Reference Re Roman Catholic High Schools Funding (1986), 13 O.A.C. 241; 53 O.R.(2d) 513, refd to. [para. 33].

Blainey v. Ontario Hockey Association (1986), 14 O.A.C. 194; 54 O.R.(2d) 513, refd to. [para. 33].

Bregman and Bregman v. Canada (Attorney General) (1986), 18 O.A.C. 82, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Century 21 Ramos Realty Inc. and Ramos (1987), 19 O.A.C. 25; 58 O.R.(2d) 737, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Ladouceur (1987), 20 O.A.C. 1, appld. [para. 34].

Reference Re Section 94(2) of The Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266; [1986] 1 W.W.R. 481; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 289, appld. [para. 34].

R. v. Piraino (1982), 67 C.C.C.(2d) 28, agreed with [paras. 36, 38, 39].

R. v. Ross (1986), 53 C.R.(3d) 81, agreed with [paras. 36, 38, 40].

R. v. Foote (1985), 65 N.B.R.(2d) 444; 167 A.P.R. 444, refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Johnstone et al. (1986), 72 N.S.R.(2d) 86; 173 A.P.R. 86; 26 C.C.C.(3d) 401, refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Tzimopoulos (1986), 17 O.A.C. 1; 29 C.C.C.(3d) 304, refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Cecchini (1985), 22 C.C.C.(3d) 323, consd. [para. 37].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, sect. 7 [paras. 17, 34]; sect. 11(d) [paras. 17, 35 to 44]; sect. 15(1) [paras. 17, 22 to 33]; sect. 24 [para. 18].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 562, sect. 563 [paras. 17 to 44].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Blacks Law Dictionary [para. 24].

Law Reform Commission (Can.), Report on the Jury, p. 47 [para. 37].

Oxford English Dictionary [paras. 24, 32].

Counsel:

Andrew L. Kerekes, for the accused;

J.K. Stewart, for the Crown.

This appeal was heard on January 29 and 30, 1987, before Morden, Robins and Tarnopolsky, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered by Tarnopolsky, J.A., and released on July 15, 1987: