R. v. Suberu (M.)

• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Judge: Doherty, Laskin and Armstrong, JJ.A.
• Citation: (2007), 220 O.A.C. 322 (CA),2007 ONCA 60,85 OR (3d) 127,218 CCC (3d) 27,45 CR (6th) 47,[2007] CarswellOnt 430,[2007] OJ No 317 (QL),151 CRR (2d) 135,220 OAC 322
• Date: 04 December 2006

R. v. Suberu (M.) (2007), 220 O.A.C. 322 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2007] O.A.C. TBEd. FE.003

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Musibau Suberu (applicant/appellant)

(C45418)

Indexed As: R. v. Suberu (M.)

Ontario Court of Appeal

Doherty, Laskin and Armstrong, JJ.A.

January 31, 2007.

Summary:

The accused was convicted of one count each of possession of property obtained by crime, possession of a stolen credit card, and possession of a stolen debit card. He was sentenced to 90 days in jail to be followed by one year of probation. The accused appealed his conviction and sentence.

The Ontario Superior Court, in a decision reported at [2006] O.T.C. 481, dismissed the appeals. The accused sought leave to appeal his conviction and sentence.

The Ontario Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal the decision dismissing the conviction appeal and dismissed the conviction appeal. The court refused leave to appeal the order dismissing the accused's appeal from sentence.

Civil Rights - Topic 4609.1

Right to counsel - General - Duty of police investigators (incl. undercover officers) - Section 10(b) of the Charter provided that "Everyone has the right on arrest or detention to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right." - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that once it was acknowledged that a person was detained by the police, s. 10(b) was engaged subject to s. 1 - However, the court interpreted the phrase "without delay" more expansively in the context of an investigative detention than in the context of arrest - In deciding whether there had been compliance with s. 10(b) in the context of a brief investigative detention, the phrase "without delay" should be read so as to countenance some brief interlude between commencing a detention and advising the detained person of his or her right to counsel - During that brief interlude, the police could take appropriate steps to make a quick assessment of whether anything beyond a brief investigative detention might be warranted - If the officer had already decided that the detained person would be detained for more than a brief interval, there was no justification for not providing the right to counsel immediately - In such cases, the investigative detention was a de facto arrest - See paragraphs 25 to 63.

Civil Rights - Topic 4613

Right to counsel - General - Requirement of arrest or detention and notice of reasons for - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4609.1 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5813

Sentencing - Sentencing procedure and rights of the accused - Plea bargain or joint submission - Effect of - At a sentencing hearing, the accused sought an intermittent sentence - The Crown took a neutral position as to whether the sentence should be served intermittently - The Ontario Court of Appeal rejected the accused's submission that the Crown's neutral position should be equated with a joint submission - The accused did not forego any right he might have had in exchange for a position taken by the Crown on sentence - Nor did the Crown's neutral position on whether the sentence should be served intermittently form any part of a plea negotiation or plea resolution - See paragraphs 67 and 68.

Police - Topic 3086

Powers - Arrest and detention - Detention for investigative purposes - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4609.1 ].

Words and Phrases

Without delay - The Ontario Court of Appeal discussed the meaning of this phrase, as found in s. 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, when considered in the context of an investigative detention rather than an arrest - See paragraphs 38 to 63.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Therens, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 613; 59 N.R. 122; 40 Sask.R. 122; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 45 C.R.(3d) 97; [1985] 4 W.W.R. 286; 32 M.V.R. 153; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 655; 13 C.R.R. 193; 38 Alta. L.R.(2d) 99; 1985 CarswellSask 368, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Grant (D.) (2006), 213 O.A.C. 127; 209 C.C.C.(3d) 250 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

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, consd. [para. 31].

R. v. Lewis (D.E.) (1998), 107 O.A.C. 46; 122 C.C.C.(3d) 481 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Greaves (E.A.) (2004), 203 B.C.A.C. 31; 332 W.A.C. 31; 189 C.C.C.(3d) 305; 2004 BCCA 484, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Campbell (D.B.) (2003), 177 Man.R.(2d) 117; 304 W.A.C. 117; 175 C.C.C.(3d) 452; 2003 MBCA 76, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Mann (P.H.), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 59; 324 N.R. 215; 187 Man.R.(2d) 1; 330 W.A.C. 1; 185 C.C.C.(3d) 308; 21 C.R.(6th) 1; 241 D.L.R.(4th) 214; [2004] 11 W.W.R. 601; 2004 CarswellMan 303; 2004 SCC 52, consd. [para. 33].

R. v. Chaisson (D.) (2006), 347 N.R. 282; 256 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 181; 773 A.P.R. 181; 206 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 2006 SCC 11, revd. (2005), 249 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 252; 743 A.P.R. 252; 200 C.C.C.(3d) 494 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 36, footnote 3].

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. 39].

R. v. Byfield (C.A.) (2005), 194 O.A.C. 98; 193 C.C.C.(3d) 139 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Debot, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1140; 102 N.R. 161; 37 O.A.C. 1; 52 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. Feeney (M.), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 13; 212 N.R. 83; 91 B.C.A.C. 1; 148 W.A.C. 1; 115 C.C.C.(3d) 129; 44 C.R.R.(2d) 1; [1997] 6 W.W.R. 634; 7 C.R.(5th) 101; 1997 CarswellBC 1015, refd to. [para. 47].

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; [1989] 1 W.W.R. 385; 37 C.R.R. 335; 1988 CarswellBC 699, refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. Kwok (1986), 18 O.A.C. 38; 31 C.C.C.(3d) 196 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Kelly (1985), 7 O.A.C. 46; 17 C.C.C.(3d) 419 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. Hall, [1998] O.J. No. 2607 (C.J. Prov. Div.), refd to. [para. 55].

R. v. Evans (W.G.), [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. 57].

R. v. Harrer (H.M.), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 562; 186 N.R. 329; 64 B.C.A.C. 161; 105 W.A.C. 161; 101 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 128 D.L.R.(4th) 98; 42 C.R.(4th) 269; 32 C.R.R.(2d) 273; 1995 CarswellBC 1098, refd to. [para. 61].

R. v. Terry (R.S.), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 207; 197 N.R. 105; 76 B.C.A.C. 25; 125 W.A.C. 25; 106 C.C.C.(3d) 508; 48 C.R.(4th) 137; 135 D.L.R.(4th) 214; 36 C.R.R.(2d) 21; 1996 CarswellBC 2299, refd to. [para. 61].

R. v. White (J.K.), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 417; 240 N.R. 1; 123 B.C.A.C. 161; 201 W.A.C. 161; 135 C.C.C.(3d) 257, refd to. [para. 61].

R. v. Milne (R.S.) (1996), 90 O.A.C. 348; 107 C.C.C.(3d) 118 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 61].

R. v. Orbanski (C.); R. v. Elias (D.J.) (2005), 335 N.R. 342; 195 Man.R.(2d) 161; 351 W.A.C. 161; 196 C.C.C.(3d) 481 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Ngo, [2005] O.J. No. 2678 (C.J.), refd to. [para. 64].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Fairburn, Michal, Mann Oh Man - We've Only Just Begun (2005), 17 N.J.C.L. 171, pp. 190 to 193 [para. 64].

Stribopoulos, James, A Failed Experiment? Investigative Detention: Ten Years Later (2003), 41 Alta. L. Rev. 335, p. 378 [para. 64].

Counsel:

Andras Schreck, for the appellant;

Andrew Cappell, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on December 4, 2006, by Doherty, Laskin and Armstrong, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. Doherty, J.A., delivered the following decision for the court on January 31, 2007.