R. v. Stoll (T.), (1999) 88 O.T.C. 17 (GD)

• Judge: Hill, J.
• Court: Ontario Court of Justice General Division (Canada)
• Case Date: January 25, 1999
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1999), 88 O.T.C. 17 (GD)

R. v. Stoll (T.) (1999), 88 O.T.C. 17 (GD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] O.T.C. TBEd. FE.055

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Timothy Stoll (applicant)

(Court File No. 2084/98)

Indexed As: R. v. Stoll (T.)

Ontario Court of Justice

General Division

Hill, J.

January 25, 1999.

Summary:

The accused was charged with two counts of sexual assault respecting two complainants. The assaults were alleged to have occurred after a house party at which the partiers, including the accused and the complainants, consumed a considerable amount of alcohol. Both complainants claimed to have been assaulted while sleeping. Parts of the party were videotaped, including images of sexually explicit behaviour between the complainants and between one complainant and her boyfriend. The accused asked the police to obtain a warrant for the seizure of the videotape, which was in the possession of one complainant's boyfriend. The police refused on the basis that there were no grounds to obtain a warrant. Ultimately, the accused issued a subpoena duces tecum for the videotape, but it had been erased. The accused applied for a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter on the basis that the destruction of evidence had unfairly prejudiced his right to make full answer and defence.

The Ontario Court (General Division) dismissed the application.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 1808

The prosecutor - Duty of disclosure - See paragraphs 57 to 70.

Civil Rights - Topic 3133

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Right of accused to make full answer and defence - See paragraphs 1 to 88.

Civil Rights - Topic 8374

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Stay of proceedings - See paragraphs 79 to 85.

Criminal Law - Topic 128

General principles - Rights of accused - Right to make full answer and defence - See paragraphs 1 to 88.

Criminal Law - Topic 129

General principles - Rights of accused - Right to discovery or production - See paragraphs 1 to 88.

Criminal Law - Topic 689

Sexual offences - Evidence - Sexual conduct or character of complainant - See paragraphs 1 to 88.

Criminal Law - Topic 3042.1

Special powers - Search warrants - When available - See paragraphs 63 to 70.

Cases Noticed:

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. 58].

R. v. Chaplin (D.A.) et al., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 727; 178 N.R. 118; 162 A.R. 272; 83 W.A.C. 272; 96 C.C.C.(3d) 225, refd to. [para. 60].

R. v. Stinchcombe, [1995] 1 S.C.R. 754; 178 N.R. 157; 162 A.R. 269; 83 W.A.C. 269; 96 C.C.C.(3d) 318, refd to. [para. 60].

Descôteaux et al. v. Mierzwinski et al., [1982] 1 S.C.R. 860; 44 N.R. 462; 70 C.C.C.(2d) 385, refd to. [para. 66].

CanadianOxy Chemicals Ltd. et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (1997), 90 B.C.A.C. 126; 147 W.A.C. 126; 114 C.C.C.(3d) 537 (C.A.), revd. [1999] 1 S.C.R. 743; 237 N.R. 373; 122 B.C.A.C. 1; 200 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 68].

R. v. Dixon (S.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 244; 222 N.R. 243; 166 N.S.R.(2d) 241; 498 A.P.R. 241; 122 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 73].

R. v. Mikhail (A.J.), [1998] O.A.C. Uned. 17 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 73].

R. v. Egger (J.H.), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 451; 153 N.R. 272; 141 A.R. 81; 46 W.A.C. 81; 82 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 73].

R. v. Bartels (T.), [1997] O.A.C. Uned. 550 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 73].

R. v. Santocono (V.J.) (1996), 91 O.A.C. 26 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 73].

R. v. Murray (S.H.) (1994), 75 O.A.C. 10 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 73].

R. v. Carosella (N.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 80; 207 N.R. 321; 98 O.A.C. 81; 112 C.C.C.(3d) 289, dist. [para. 79].

R. v. O'Connor (H.P.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 411; 191 N.R. 1; 68 B.C.A.C. 1; 112 W.A.C. 1; 103 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 81].

R. v. La (H.K.) et al., [1997] 2 S.C.R. 680; 213 N.R. 1; 200 A.R. 81; 146 W.A.C. 81; 116 C.C.C.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 81].

R. v. Graat, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 819; 45 N.R. 451; 2 C.C.C.(3d) 365, refd to. [para. 84].

R. v. Latour (P.) (1997), 101 O.A.C. 108; 116 C.C.C.(3d) 279 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 84].

R. v. K.G.B., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 740; 148 N.R. 241; 61 O.A.C. 1; 79 C.C.C.(3d) 257, refd to. [para. 85].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 486 [para. 66].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canada, Law Reform Commission, Working Paper No. 30, Police Powers - Search and Seizure in Criminal Law Enforcement (1983), pp. 30, para. 71 [para. 75]; 57, para. 137 [para. 75]; 206 to 208, paras. 220 to 224 [para. 75].

Counsel:

N.J. Bridge, for the Crown/respondent;

S.K. Fenton, for the applicant.

This application was heard on December 1-3 and 7-9, 1998, by Hill, J, of the Ontario Court (General Division) who delivered the following decision on January 25, 1999.