R. v. Toten (W.P.), (1993) 63 O.A.C. 321 (CA)

• Judge: Dubin, C.J.O., Brooke, Tarnopolsky, Arbour and Doherty, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: June 29, 1993
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1993), 63 O.A.C. 321 (CA);1993 CanLII 3427 (ON CA);1993 CanLII 3427 (NS CA);14 OR (3d) 225;83 CCC (3d) 5;[1993] OJ No 1495 (QL);16 CRR (2d) 49;20 WCB (2d) 234;63 OAC 321

R. v. Toten (W.P.) (1993), 63 O.A.C. 321 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) v. William Peter Toten (appellant)

(C.A. No. C8185)

Indexed As: R. v. Toten (W.P.)

Ontario Court of Appeal

Dubin, C.J.O., Brooke, Tarnopolsky, Arbour and Doherty, JJ.A.

June 29, 1993.

Summary:

The accused was convicted of sexual interference and sentenced to six months' imprisonment followed by two years' proba­tion. The accused appealed his conviction and sentence.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 3157

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Right to just and fair trial - The Criminal Code, s. 715.1, provided that in certain proceedings in­volving sexual offences against children, a videotape made within a reasonable time after the alleged offence, in which the complainant described the acts complained of, was admissible, if the complainant while testifying, adopted the videotape's contents - An accused argued that the admission of videotaped statements under s. 715.1 for numerous reasons resulted in a denial of his to a right fair trial contrary to s. 11(d) of the Charter - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that s. 715.1 did not violate s. 11(d) - See paragraphs 82 to 115.

Civil Rights - Topic 3165.1

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Evidence - General - The Criminal Code, s. 715.1, provided that in certain proceedings involving sex­ual offences against children, a videotape made within a reasonable time after the alleged offence, in which the complainant described the acts complained of, was admissible, if the complainant while tes­tifying, adopted the videotape's contents - An accused argued that s. 715.1 offended the principles of fundamental justice (Charter, s. 7) because such statements were hearsay which did not meet the con­stitutional standard of necessity and relia­bility - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the videotaped statements were not hearsay - See paragraphs 71 to 76.

Civil Rights - Topic 3165.1

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Evidence - General - The Criminal Code, s. 715.1, provided that in certain proceedings involving sex­ual offences against children, a videotape made within a reasonable time after the alleged offence, in which the complainant described the acts complained of, was admissible, if the complainant while tes­tifying, adopted the videotape's contents - An accused argued that the common law rule against admission of prior consistent statements was a free-standing principle of fundamental justice and since s. 715.1 contravened that rule, the provision viol­ated s. 7 of the Charter - The Ontario Court of Appeal rejected this argument - See paragraphs 77 to 81.

Criminal Law - Topic 5464

Evidence and witnesses - Evidence of children - Out of court testimony - Vid­eotaped statements - The Criminal Code, s. 715.1, provided that in certain proceed­ings involving sexual offences against children, a videotape made within a rea­sonable time after the alleged offence, in which the complainant described the acts complained of, was admissible, if the complainant while testifying, adopted the videotape's contents - The Ontario Court of Appeal discussed the nature and purpose of this evidentiary rule and interpreted the provision - The court discussed the pre­conditions to admissibility under the sec­tion, whether s. 715.1 was limited by other generally applicable rules of evidence, whether judges have authority to edit the videotapes and whether judges have a discretion to exclude a videotaped state­ment which complies with s. 715.1 - See paragraphs 20 to 69.

Criminal Law - Topic 5464

Evidence and witnesses - Evidence of children - Out of court testimony - Vide­otaped statements - The Criminal Code, s. 715.1, provided that in certain proceedings involving sexual offences against children, a videotape made within a reasonable time after the alleged offence, in which the complainant described the acts complained of, was admissible, if the complainant while testifying, adopted the videotape's contents - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that s. 715.1 was not contrary to ss. 7 or 11(d) of the Charter - See paragraphs 71 to 115.

Criminal Law - Topic 5464

Evidence and witnesses - Evidence of children - Out of court testimony - Vide­otaped statements - The accused was charged with sexual interference with a young person - The Crown introduced a videotaped statement by the complainant given to police shortly after the alleged assault (Criminal Code, s. 715.1) - The trial judge admitted the statement and allowed the jury to view the videotape in the jury room during their deliberations - The accused argued that the trial judge erred in allowing the viewing - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that it could not be said that the trial judge improperly exercised his discretion - See paragraphs 116 to 120.

Criminal Law - Topic 5950

Sentence - Sexual interference with a young person - The accused, while babysitting for a friend, allegedly fondled the friend's seven year old daughter - An isolated incident - The accused was con­victed of sexual interference and sentenced to six months' imprisonment plus two years' probation - The Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed the sentence.

Evidence - Topic 1504

Hearsay rule - What constitutes hearsay - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 3165.1 ].

Words and Phrases

Adopts - The Ontario Court of Appeal discussed the meaning of the word "adopts" as it appeared in s. 715.1 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 - See paragraphs 34 to 55.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Laramee (1991), 73 Man.R.(2d) 238; 65 C.C.C.(3d) 465; 6 C.R.(4th) 277 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19 et seq., footnote 5].

R. v. Kilabuk (1990), 60 C.C.C.(3d) 413; 2 C.R.(4th) 350 (N.W.T.S.C.), refd to. [para. 19, footnote 4].

R. v. B.(K.) (1990), 76 Alta. L.R. 129 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 19, footnote 4].

R. v. Thompson (1989), 97 A.R. 157; 68 C.R.(3d) 328 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 19, footnote 4].

R. v. J.L.M. (1991), 68 C.C.C.(3d) 344 (Sask. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 19, footnote 4].

R. v. Butler and McCord, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 452; 134 N.R. 81; 70 C.C.C.(3d) 129, refd to. [para. 20, footnote 6].

R. v. Paré, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 618; 80 N.R. 272; 11 Q.A.C. 1; 38 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 60 C.R.(3d) 346; 45 D.L.R.(4th) 546, refd to. [para. 21, footnote 7].

R. v. Seaboyer and Gayme, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 577; 128 N.R. 81; 48 O.A.C. 81; 66 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 50 C.R.(3d) 395, refd to. [para. 22 et seq., footnote 8].

R. v. Levogiannis (1990), 43 O.A.C. 161; 1 O.R.(3d) 351; 62 C.C.C.(3d) 59, refd to. [para. 30, footnote 26].

R. v. Khan, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 531; 113 N.R. 53; 41 O.A.C. 353; 59 C.C.C.(3d) 92; 79 C.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 30 et seq., footnote 26].

Khan v. College of Physicians and Sur­geons (1992), 57 O.A.C. 115; 9 O.R.(3d) 641; 76 C.C.C.(3d) 10 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30 et seq., footnote 26].

R. v. Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society et al. (No. 2), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 606; 139 N.R. 241; 114 N.S.R.(2d) 91; 313 A.P.R. 91; 74 C.C.C.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 33, footnote 32].

R. v. Finta (1992), 53 O.A.C. 1; 73 C.C.C.(3d) 65 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33, footnote 32].

R. v. Corbett, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 670; 85 N.R. 81; 64 C.R.(3d) 1; 41 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 28 B.C.L.R.(2d) 145, refd to. [para. 33 et seq., footnote 33].

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. 33 et seq., footnote 33].

R. v. Meddoui (1990), 111 A.R. 295; 61 C.C.C.(3d) 345; 2 C.R.(4th) 316 (C.A.), [para. 36 et seq., footnote 35].

R. v. Timm, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 315; 37 N.R. 204; 29 A.R. 509; 59 C.C.C.(2d) 396, refd to. [para. 36, footnote 36].

R. v. Baron and Wertman (1976), 31 C.C.C.(2d) 525; 14 O.R.(2d) 173, refd to. [para. 37, footnote 38].

Deacon v. R., [1947] S.C.R. 531; 89 C.C.C. 1, refd to. [para. 38, footnote 39].

R. v. Atikian and Atikian (1990), 42 O.A.C. 214; 62 C.C.C.(3d) 357; 3 C.R.(4th) 77 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38, footnote 40].

R. v. Smith (1985), 66 A.R. 195 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38, footnote 40].

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) 1257, refd to. [para. 44 et seq., footnote 44].

R. v. K.G.B. (1993), 148 N.R. 241; 61 O.A.C. 1; 79 C.C.C.(3d) 257 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 44 et seq., footnote 44].

R. v. Béland and Phillips, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 398; 79 N.R. 263; 9 Q.A.C. 293; 36 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 46, foot­note 45].

R. v. Campbell (1977), 38 C.C.C.(2d) 6; 17 O.R.(2d) 673 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 46, footnote 45].

R. v. Jones (T.J.) (1988), 29 O.A.C. 219; 44 C.C.C.(3d) 248; 66 C.R.(3d) 54 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 46, footnote 46].

R. v. Langille (1990), 40 O.A.C. 355; 59 C.C.C.(3d) 544; 75 O.R.(2d) 65 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 50, footnote 50].

R. v. Swanston (1982), 65 C.C.C.(2d) 453; 25 C.R.(3d) 385 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 50, footnote 50].

R. v. Oickle (1984), 61 N.S.R.(2d) 239; 133 A.P.R. 239; 11 C.C.C.(3d) 180 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 56, footnote 55].

R. v. Dubois (1986), 13 O.A.C. 342; 27 C.C.C.(3d) 325 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 57, footnote 57].

R. v. Wray, [1971] S.C.R. 272; [1970] 4 C.C.C. 1, refd to. [para. 60, footnote 63].

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. 68, footnote 70].

United States v. Owens (1987), 484 U.S. 554 [para. 75, footnote 76].

R. v. Salituro, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 654; 131 N.R. 161; 50 O.A.C. 125; 68 C.C.C.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 76, footnote 77].

R. v. Albright, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 383; 79 N.R. 129; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 105, refd to. [para. 83, footnote 83].

R. v. Bain, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 91; 133 N.R. 1; 51 O.A.C. 161; 69 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 87, footnote 86].

McGuire v. State (1986), 706 S.W.2d 360 (Ark. S.C.), refd to. [para. 95, footnote 91].

State v. Pilkey (1989), 776 S.W.2d 943 (Tenn. S.C.), refd to. [para. 97, footnote 97].

State v. Bastien (1989), 541 N.E.2d 670 (Ill. S.C.), refd to. [para. 97, footnote 97].

Long v. State (1987), 742 S.W.2d 302 (Tex. Crim. App. Ct.), cert. denied 108 S.C. 1301, refd to. [para. 97, footnote 97].

Buckley v. State (1990), 786 S.W.2d 357 (Tex. Crim. App. in banc), refd to. [para. 97, footnote 97].

Jones v. Dugger (1989), 888 F.2d 1340 (11th Cir.), refd to. [para. 97, footnote 97].

State v. Bennett (1991), 591 S.O.2d 1193 (L.A. App. 1st Cir.), refd to. [para. 97, footnote 97].

State v. Schaal (1991), 806 S.W.2d 659 (Mo. banc), refd to. [para. 97, footnote 97].

California v. Green (1970), 399 U.S. 149, refd to. [para. 98, footnotes 98, 99].

Douglas v. Alabama (1965), 380 U.S. 415, refd to. [para. 98, footnote 99].

Hochheiser v. Superior Court (People) (1984), 208 Cal. Rptr. 273 (Cal. App. 2 Dist.), refd to. [para. 99, footnote 100].

R. v. Moore (1990), 63 C.C.C.(3d) 85 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 112, footnote 107].

R. v. Lucas, [1963] 1 C.C.C. 1, refd to. [para. 113, footnote 108].

R. v. Simpson and Ochs, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 3; 81 N.R. 67; 38 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 113, footnote 108].

R. v. Newsome (1980), 71 Cr. App. R. 325 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 113, footnote 108].

R. v. Pleich (1980), 55 C.C.C.(2d) 13; 16 C.R.(3d) 194 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 117, footnote 109].

United States v. Binder (1985), 769 F.2d 595 (9th Cir.), refd to. [para. 118, foot­note 110].

Statutes Noticed:

Canada Evidence Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-5, sect. 4 [para. 110, footnote 105]; sect. 9 [para. 96, footnote 95]; sect. 29, sect. 30 [para. 110, footnote 104].

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1, sect. 7, sect. 11(d) [para. 15 et seq.]; sect. 24 [para. 88].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 643 [para. 67].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 486(1) [para. 22, footnote 10]; sect. 486(2.1) [paras. 30, 110, footnote 105]; sect. 715 [para. 63]; sect. 715.1 [para. 2 et seq.].

Criminal Code, Evidence Act, and Other Acts Amendment Act (Queensland) 1989, No. 17, sect. 63, sect. 64 [para. 27, foot­note 20].

Criminal Evidence Act (Ireland), 1992, No. 12, sect. 15(2), sect. 16(1)(b) [para. 27, foot­notes 20, 22].

Criminal Justice Act (England) 1991, c. 53, sect. 54 [paras. 27, 32, footnotes 20, 30]; sect. 54(7) [para. 92, footnote 90].

Evidence Act Amendment Act (South Australia) 1988, No. 32, sect. 6 [para. 27, footnote 20].

Model Code of Evidence (United States) (1942), rule 503(b) [para. 78, footnote 80].

Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. N-1, sect. 9 [para. 112, footnote 106].

Rules of Evidence (Hawaii), rule 616 [para. 27, footnote 22].

Uniform Rules of Evidence (United States) (1953), rule 63(1) [para. 78, footnote 80].

Uniform Rules of Evidence, Revised (United States) (1986), rule 807(a), rule 807(b), rule 807(c) [para. 95, footnote 92].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Allan, The Working and Rationale of the Hearsay Rule and the Implications of Modern Psychological Knowledge (1991), 44 Curr. Legal Probs. 217, gen­erally [para. 24, footnote 15].

Australia, Law Reform Commission, Children's Evidence by Video-Link, Discussion Paper No. 40 (1989), pp. 4-5 [para. 26, footnote 19].

Australia (Western), Law Reform Com­mission, Report 87: Report on the Evi­dence of Children and Other Potentially Vulnerable Witnesses (1991), generally [para. 23, footnote 12].

Badgley Report - see Canada, Report of the Committee on Sexual Offences Against Children and Youths.

Bala, N., Children as Witnesses in Sexual Abuse Cases: Statutory Reforms, Cana­dian Bar Association Proceedings (1991), p. 49 [paras. 28, 30, footnotes 23, 25].

Campbell, The Use of Videotaped and In-Camera Testimony in Criminal Trials to Accommodate Child Witnesses (1989), 68 Neb. L. Rev. 372, generally [para. 27, footnote 20].

Canada, Department of Justice, Child Victims and Witnesses: The Social Science and Legal Literature (1988), pp. 22-23 [para. 25, footnote 18].

Canada, Law Reform Commission, Report on Evidence (1975), Evidence Code, ss. 5, 28, and 62 (Commentary), p. 70 [para. 78, footnote 79].

Canada, Report of the Committee on Sex­ual Offences Against Children and Youths (The Badgley Report) (1984), generally [para. 23, footnote 11]; vol. 1, pp. 399, 400 [para. 29, footnote 24].

Canada, The Report of the Feder­al/Provincial Task Force on Uniform Rules of Evidence (1982), pp. 195 [para. 57, footnote 57]; 294 [para. 46, footnote 46]; 295 [paras. 43, 46, footnotes 43, 46]; 296-311 [para. 46, footnote 46].

Cross on Evidence (7th Ed. 1991), pp. 281 [paras. 36, 46, footnotes 34, 45]; 282-295 [paras. 36, 46, footnotes 34, 46]; 292, 293 [para. 113, footnote 108].

Deutscher and Leonoff, Identification Evidence (1991), pp. 90-95 [para. 50, footnote 50].

Goode, The Politics of Child Sexual Abuse and the Role of the Criminal Law (1989), 13 Crim. L.J. 31, pp. 37-39 [para. 25, footnote 18].

Goodman and Helgeson, Child Sexual Assault: Children's Memory and the Law (1985), 40 U. Miami L. Rev. 181, pp. 199 [para. 31, footnote 29]; 203 [para. 24, footnote 17]; 203-204 [para. 26, footnote 19].

Harnon, Children's Evidence in Sexual Offences (1992), generally [para. 23, footnote 14].

Harnon, The Examination of Children in Sexual Offences -- The Israeli Law and Practice, [1988] Crim. L. Rev. 263, generally [para. 23, footnote 14].

Hill and Hill, Videotaping Children's Tes­timony: An Empirical View (1987), 85 Mich. L. Rev. 809, pp. 821-822 [para. 23, footnote 13].

Ireland, Law Reform Commission, Report on Child Sexual Abuse (1990), generally [para. 23, footnote 12].

MacCrimmon, Consistent Statements of Witnesses (1979), 17 Osgoode Hall L.J. 285, generally [para. 36, footnote 34]; 285-286 [para. 46, footnote 45].

McCormick on Evidence (4th Ed. 1992), pp. 117-120 [para. 78, footnote 80]; 122, 123 [para. 50, footnote 50]; 660 [para. 43, footnote 43]; 225 [para. 95, footnote 92].

McGillivray, Abused Children in the Courts: Adjusting the Scales after Bill C-15 (1990), 19 Man. L.J. 549, pp. 566, 567 [para. 100, footnote 102].

McGillivray, R. v. Laramee: Forgetting Children, Forgetting Truth (1990), 6 C.R.(4th) 325, pp. 328, 329 [para. 30, footnote 25]; 330 [para. 31, footnote 27]; 331 [paras. 28, 31, footnotes 23, 27]; 341 [para. 32, footnote 31].

McGough and Hornsby, Reflections upon Louisiana's Child Witness Videotaping Statute (1987), 47 Louisiana Law Review 1255, pp. 1258 [para. 24, foot­note 17]; 1259 [paras. 24, 25, footnotes 17, 18]; 1260-1261 [para. 25, footnote 18].

McWilliams, Peter K., Canadian Criminal Evidence (3rd Ed. 1993), p. 15-87 [para. 57, footnote 57].

Mian, The Child as Witness (1991), 4 C.R.(4th) 359, generally [para. 24, foot­note 15].

Misener, Children's Hearsay Evidence in Child Sexual Abuse Prosecutions: A Proposal for Reform (1991), 33 Crim. L.Q. 364, pp. 379, 380 [para. 86, foot­note 85].

Note, The Testimony of Child Victims in Sex Abuse Prosecutions: Two Legislative Innovations (1985), 98 Harv. L. Review 806, generally [para. 27, footnote 20].

O'Brien, Television Trials and Fundamen­tal Fairness: The Constitutionality of Louisiana's Child Shield Law (1986), 61 Tul. L. Rev. 141, pp. 148-151 [para. 26, footnote 19].

Ontario Law Reform Commission, Report on Child Witnesses (1991), generally [para. 23, footnote 11]; pp. 7-18 [para. 24, footnote 15].

Paciocco, Charter Principles and Proof in Criminal Cases (1987), pp. 248-250, 328 [para. 75, footnote 76].

Paciocco, The Law of Evidence: Recasting Rules to Perform New Roles (1991), L.S.U.C. Special Lectures: Applying the Law of Evidence, pp. 14-15 [para. 33, footnote 33].

Pigott Report - see United Kingdom, Report of the Home Advisory Group on Video Evidence.

Rosenberg, Child and Sexual Abuse Vic­tims (1992), p. 4 [para. 58, footnote 59].

Scottish Law Commission, Report 125: Report on the Evidence of Children and Other Potentially Vulnerable Witnesses (1990), generally [para. 23, footnote 12]; pp. 27, 28 [para. 31, footnote 28]; 29, 30 [paras. 31, 37, footnotes 28, 37].

Sopinka, Lederman and Bryant, The Law of Evidence in Canada (1992), pp. 16-18 [para. 89, footnote 88]; 276 [para. 56, footnote 55]; 307, 308 [para. 46, foot­notes 45, 46]; 309-312 [para. 46, foot­note 46]; 313-314 [paras. 46, 50, foot­notes 46, 50]; 315-318 [para. 46, foot­note 46]; 319 [paras. 46, 113, footnotes 46, 108]; 320, 321 [para. 46, footnote 46].

Spencer and Flin, Do Children Forget Faster?, [1991] Crim. L.R. 189, generally [para. 24, footnote 17].

Spencer and Flin, The Evidence of Children: The Law and the Psychology (1990), ch. 13 [para. 23, footnote 14]; pp. 89, 90 [para. 100, footnote 101]; 162, 163 [para. 31, footnote 29]; 222-228 [para. 23, footnote 13]; 249-251 [para. 24, footnote 17]; 252-257 [para. 25, footnote 18]; 290-297 [para. 26, footnote 19]; 324-326 [para. 95, footnote 92].

Spencer, Child Witnesses and Video Technology: Thoughts for the Home Office (1987), 57 J. of Crim. L. 444, pp. 450, 451 [para. 30, footnote 25].

Spencer, Comment (1987), 137 N.L.J. 1127, p. 1128 [para. 32, footnote 31].

Tasmania, Law Reform Commission Report, Report 62: Child Witnesses (1990), generally [para. 23, footnote 12].

United Kingdom, Report of the Home Office Advisory Group on Video Evi­dence (The Pigott Report) (1989), gen­erally [para. 23, footnote 12].

Victoria, Law Reform Commission Report, Report 13: Sexual Offences Against Children (1988), generally [para. 23, footnote 12].

Williams, Child Witnesses, in Essays in Honour of J.C. Smith (1987), pp. 189 [paras. 24, 25, footnotes 17, 18]; 190 [para. 24, footnote 17].

Wilson, Children's Evidence in Legal Proceedings: A Perspective on the Cana­dian Position (1989), 23 L. Soc. Gaz. 281, pp. 288-290 [para. 31, footnote 28].

Young, Child Sexual Abuse and the Law of Evidence: Some Current Canadian Issues (1992), 11 Can. J. Fam. L. 11, pp. 37-38 [para. 31, footnote 28].

Yun, A Comprehensive Approach to Child Hearsay Statements in Sex Abuse Cases (1983), 83 Colum. L. Rev. 1745, pp. 1750 [para. 24, footnote 17]; 1751 [paras. 24, 26, foot­notes 17, 19]; 1752 [para. 26, footnote 19].

Counsel:

John Donohue, for the appellant;

David Finley and Scott C. Hutchison, for the Crown.

This appeal was heard on November 30, and December 1 and 2, 1992, before Dubin, C.J.O., Brooke, Tarnopolsky, Arbour and Doherty, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The decision of the court was delivered by Doherty, J.A., and released on June 29, 1993.