R. v. Thomas (D.) (No. 2), [2000] O.T.C. 263 (SupCt)

JudgeJarvis, J.
CourtSuperior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
Case DateApril 10, 2000
JurisdictionOntario
Citations[2000] O.T.C. 263 (SupCt)

R. v. Thomas (D.), [2000] O.T.C. 263 (SupCt)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] O.T.C. TBEd. AP.076

The Crown (respondent) v. Derek Thomas (applicant)

(Court File No. 0374-99)

Indexed As: R. v. Thomas (D.) (No. 2)

Court of Ontario

Superior Court of Justice

Jarvis, J.

April 10, 2000.

Summary:

Before trial, Thomas applied, pursuant to 24(2) of the Charter, to exclude a statement made by Thomas to a nurse at a hospital following a car accident. Thomas allegedly caused the accident in which a person was killed. Thomas was arrested for robbery, possession of stolen property and dangerous driving. Thomas stated to the emergency room nurse that at the time of the accident that he had ingested crack cocaine. Thomas argued that the statement to the nurse was made to a person in authority. Thomas also argued that he was not advised of his rights guaranteed under s. 10 of the Charter.

The Ontario Superior Court held that Thomas was advised of his rights and that he understood those rights. The court held that the nurse was not a person in authority and that the statement that Thomas made to the nurse was admissible at trial.

Civil Rights - Topic 3142

Trials - Due process - Fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Arrest or detention - Right to be informed of reasons for - See paragraphs 23 to 25.

Criminal Law - Topic 5340

Evidence and witnesses - Confessions and voluntary statements - Admissibility - Effect of mental capacity of accused - See paragraphs 20 and 21.

Criminal Law - Topic 5353

Evidence and witnesses - Confessions and voluntary statements - Who is a person in authority - See paragraphs 9 to 17.

Words and Phrases

Operating mind - The Ontario Superior Court discussed the meaning of the words "operating mind" for purposes of inculpatory statements made by an accused - See paragraphs 20 to 22.

Words and Phrases

Person in authority - The Ontario Superior Court discussed the meaning of the phrase "person in authority" for purposes of an inculpatory statement made by an accused - See paragraphs 9 to 17.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. M.C.H. (1998), 230 N.R. 1; 113 O.A.C. 97; 127 C.C.C.(3d) 449 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Roadhouse (1933), 61 C.C.C. 191 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Kematch and Campeau (1979), 3 Sask.R. 295; 48 C.C.C.(2d) 179 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. M.R.B. (1998), 108 B.C.A.C. 85; 176 W.A.C. 85 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Spidell (A.W.) (1996), 151 N.S.R.(2d) 290; 440 A.P.R. 290; 107 C.C.C.(3d) 348 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Nagotcha (1980), 32 N.R. 204; 51 C.C.C.(2d) 352 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Whittle (D.J.) (1994), 170 N.R. 16; 73 O.A.C. 201; 92 C.C.C.(3d) 11 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Smith (N.M.) (1991), 122 N.R. 203; 104 N.S.R.(2d) 233; 283 A.P.R. 233; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 313 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Haughton (No. 2) (1983), 38 O.R.(2d) 496 (Co. Ct.) [para. 27].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 10(a), sect. 10(b) [para. 1].

Counsel:

Bruce McGuire, for the Crown respondent;

David Midanik, for the applicant.

This application was heard on January 26-31, 2000, by Jarvis, J., of the Ontario Superior Court, who released the following decision on April 10, 2000.

Please note: The following judgment has not been edited.

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 practice notes
  • R. v. Johal (S.S.), 2015 BCCA 246
    • Canada
    • British Columbia Court of Appeal of British Columbia
    • June 3, 2015
    ...in Spidell in R. v. M.R.B. (1998), 51 B.C.L.R.(3d) 158 at para. 20 (C.A.) (see also Jean c. R. , 2011 QCCQ 3697; R. v. Thomas , 2000 O.T.C. 263 (Sup. Ct. J.)). I would do so again. In the unlikely event that the doctor in the instant case acted without Mr. Johal's consent, that would be an ......
1 cases
  • R. v. Johal (S.S.), 2015 BCCA 246
    • Canada
    • British Columbia Court of Appeal of British Columbia
    • June 3, 2015
    ...in Spidell in R. v. M.R.B. (1998), 51 B.C.L.R.(3d) 158 at para. 20 (C.A.) (see also Jean c. R. , 2011 QCCQ 3697; R. v. Thomas , 2000 O.T.C. 263 (Sup. Ct. J.)). I would do so again. In the unlikely event that the doctor in the instant case acted without Mr. Johal's consent, that would be an ......