R. v. Van Wyk (H.W.), (1999) 104 O.T.C. 161 (SC)

• Judge: Hill, J.
• Court: Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
• Case Date: September 15, 1999
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1999), 104 O.T.C. 161 (SC)

R. v. Van Wyk (H.W.) (1999), 104 O.T.C. 161 (SC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] O.T.C. TBEd. SE.210

Her Majesty the Queen v.  Henricus Wilhelmus Van Wyk

(Court File No. 2516/98)

Indexed As: R. v. Van Wyk (H.W.)

Court of Ontario

Superior Court of Justice

Hill, J.

September 15, 1999.

Summary:

An accused was charged under the Motor Vehicle Act with failing to remain at the scene of an accident. After the preliminary inquiry, the charge was withdrawn and the accused was charged under the Criminal Code with failing to remain at the scene of an accident. The accused brought a series of motions alleging various Charter breaches.

The Ontario Superior Court held, inter alia, that: (1) the police had contravened the accused's s. 8 Charter right by entering onto his property and examining his vehicle without a search warrant. However, the court denied a remedy for the breach; (2) a pre-arrest utterance, made after the police knew that the accused had driven the vehicle believed to have caused the accident, was obtained in contravention of the accused's s. 10(b) Charter right and was to be excluded from evidence; (3) the police had not contravened s. 10(b) by denying the accused the use of the telephone in his residence to call counsel. However, the statements made after the accused requested to speak to counsel but before he had the opportunity to do so, were obtained in contravention of s. 10(b) and were to be excluded from evidence; (4) the police contravened the accused's ss. 7, 10(b) and 11(d) Charter rights with a pressing and, at times, deceptive interrogation despite the accused's assertions that counsel had instructed him to say nothing. The resulting videotaped statement was to be excluded from evidence; and (5) the delay in charging the accused under the Criminal Code did not offend his ss. 10(a), 10(b) and 11(a) Charter rights.

Civil Rights - Topic 1556

Property - Land - Search or seizure of private residence - See paragraphs 24 to 43.

Civil Rights - Topic 1646

Property - Search and seizure - Unreasonable search and seizure defined - See paragraphs 24 to 43.

Civil Rights - Topic 3136

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Right to be informed of alleged offence - See paragraphs 182 to 193.

Civil Rights - Topic 3160

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Right to remain silent (Charter, s. 7) - See paragraphs 70 to 72 and 147 to 168.

Civil Rights - Topic 3604

Detention and imprisonment - Detention - What constitutes - See paragraphs 57 to 69.

Civil Rights - Topic 4604

Right to counsel - General - Denial of or interference with - What constitutes - See paragraphs 57 to 124 and 147 to 168.

Civil Rights - Topic 4608

Right to counsel - General - Right to be advised of - See paragraphs 57 to 69.

Civil Rights - Topic 4609.1

Right to counsel - General - Duty of police investigators - See paragraphs 95 to 124.

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - See paragraph 39.

Civil Rights - Topic 8402

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Criminal proceedings - Preferring indictments - See paragraphs 194 and 195.

Criminal Law - Topic 4262

Procedure - Indictment - Preferring of indictments - See paragraphs 194 and 195.

Police - Topic 3186

Powers - Search - Private property - See paragraphs 24 to 43.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Hicks (1988), 28 O.A.C. 118; 42 C.C.C.(3d) 394 (C.A.), affd. [1990] 1 S.C.R. 120; 104 N.R. 399; 37 O.A.C. 143; 54 C.C.C.(3d) 575, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Esposito (1985), 12 O.A.C. 350; 24 C.C.C.(3d) 88 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1986] 1 S.C.R. viii; 65 N.R. 244; 15 O.A.C. 237, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Moran (1987), 21 O.A.C. 257; 36 C.C.C.(3d) 225 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1988] 1 S.C.R. xi, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Evans (C.R.) et al., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 8; 191 N.R. 327; 69 B.C.A.C. 81; 113 W.A.C. 81; 104 C.C.C.(3d) 23, consd. [para. 28].

R. v. Lauda (J.) (1999), 121 O.A.C. 365 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Campbell (S.) (1993), 36 B.C.A.C. 204; 58 W.A.C. 204 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Vu (D.A.) (1999), 121 B.C.A.C. 66; 198 W.A.C. 66; 23 C.R.(5th) 302 (C.A.), agreed with [para. 34].

R. v. Joly (M.) (1999), 118 O.A.C. 334 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Kokesch, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 3; 121 N.R. 161; 61 C.C.C.(3d) 207; 1 C.R.(4th) 62; [1991] 1 W.W.R. 193; 51 B.C.L.R.(2d) 157; 50 C.R.R. 285, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Mellenthin, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 615; 144 N.R. 50; 135 A.R. 1; 33 W.A.C. 1; 76 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Wise, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 527; 133 N.R. 161; 51 O.A.C. 351; 70 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Goldhart (W.), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 463; 198 N.R. 321; 92 O.A.C. 161; 107 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 39].

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; 37 C.R.R. 335; [1989] 1 W.W.R. 385, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Blinch (R.J.) (1993), 31 B.C.A.C. 131; 50 W.A.C. 131; 83 C.C.C.(3d) 158 (C.A.), dist. [para. 41].

R. v. Therens, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 613; 59 N.R. 122; 40 Sask.R. 122; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 655; [1985] 4 W.W.R. 286; 32 M.V.R. 153; 45 C.R.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 58].

R. v. Prosper, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 236; 172 N.R. 161; 133 N.S.R.(2d) 321; 380 A.P.R. 321; 92 C.C.C.(3d) 353, refd to. [para. 58].

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, refd to. [para. 61].

R. v. Caputo (E.) (1997), 98 O.A.C. 30; 114 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 63].

R. v. Hobbins, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 553; 41 N.R. 433; 66 C.C.C.(2d) 289, refd to. [para. 65].

R. v. Storrey, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 241; 105 N.R. 81; 37 O.A.C. 161; 53 C.C.C.(3d) 316; 75 C.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 69].

R. v. Hebert, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 151; 110 N.R. 1; 57 C.C.C.(3d) 1; [1990] 5 W.W.R. 1; 77 C.R.(3d) 145; 49 C.R.R. 114; 47 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 71].

R. v. Yorke (1990), 37 O.A.C. 253; 54 C.C.C.(3d) 321 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 71].

R. v. M.C.H., [1998] 2 S.C.R. 449; 230 N.R. 1; 113 O.A.C. 97; 127 C.C.C.(3d) 449, refd to. [para. 72].

R. v. Sorokan (1985), 39 Sask.R. 239 (C.A.), dist. [para. 99].

R. v. Jackson (G.G.) (1993), 66 O.A.C. 64; 86 C.C.C.(3d) 233 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 102].

R. v. Gilbert (1988), 24 O.A.C. 150; 40 C.C.C.(3d) 423 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 102].

R. v. Playford (1987), 24 O.A.C. 161; 40 C.C.C.(3d) 142 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 102].

R. v. McKane (1987), 21 O.A.C. 73; 35 C.C.C.(3d) 481 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 102].

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. 108].

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. 109].

R. v. Sadlon (P.) (1992), 88 O.A.C. 372; 36 M.V.R.(2d) 127 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1992] 3 S.C.R. viii; 145 N.R. 397; 59 O.A.C. 396, refd to. [para. 110].

R. v. Smith (J.M.) (1996), 88 O.A.C. 374; 105 C.C.C.(3d) 58 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 110].

R. v. Hui and Ho (1988), 32 O.A.C. 141 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1989] 1 S.C.R. ix; 101 N.R. 360; 36 O.A.C. 214, refd to. [para. 111].

R. v. Jones (C.R.), [1999] O.A.C. Uned. 144 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 112].

R. v. Taylor (1990), 95 N.S.R.(2d) 282; 251 A.P.R. 282; 54 C.C.C.(3d) 152 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 113].

R. v. Andersen (D.R.) (1999), 175 N.S.R.(2d) 362; 534 A.P.R. 362 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 114].

R. v. Gyori (D.L.) (1993), 145 A.R. 183; 55 W.A.C. 183; 19 C.R.R.(2d) 331 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1994] 1 S.C.R. vii; 170 N.R. 346; 162 A.R. 79; 83 W.A.C. 79, refd to. [para. 115].

R. v. Manninen, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1233; 76 N.R. 198; 21 O.A.C. 192; 34 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 41 D.L.R.(4th) 301; 58 C.R.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 120].

R. v. Leclair and Ross, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 3; 91 N.R. 81; 31 O.A.C. 321; 46 C.C.C.(3d) 129; 67 C.R.(3d) 209; 37 C.R.R. 369, refd to. [para. 120].

R. v. Smith (J.) et al. (1999), 119 O.A.C. 333; 134 C.C.C.(3d) 453 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 120].

R. v. Mayo (W.) (1999), 119 O.A.C. 151 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 122].

R. v. L.R.I. and E.T., [1993] 4 S.C.R. 504; 159 N.R. 363; 37 B.C.A.C. 48; 60 W.A.C. 48; 86 C.C.C.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 147].

R. v. E.T. - see R. v. L.R.I. and E.T.

R. v. Ferguson (1985), 10 O.A.C. 5; 20 C.C.C.(3d) 256 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 151].

R. v. Pagé (A.) (1999), 118 O.A.C. 390 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 153].

R. v. Wood (D.A.) (1994), 135 N.S.R.(2d) 334; 386 A.P.R. 334; 94 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1995] 3 S.C.R. viii; 193 N.R. 238; 145 N.S.R.(2d) 80; 418 A.P.R. 80, refd to. [para. 153].

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. 163].

R. v. Burlingham (T.W.), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 206; 181 N.R. 1; 58 B.C.A.C. 161; 96 W.A.C. 161; 97 C.C.C.(3d) 385, refd to. [para. 164].

R. v. Noble (S.J.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 874; 210 N.R. 321; 89 B.C.A.C. 1; 145 W.A.C. 1; 114 C.C.C.(3d) 385, refd to. [para. 165].

R. v. Chambers (No. 2), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1293; 119 N.R. 321; 59 C.C.C.(3d) 321, refd to. [para. 165].

R. v. Evans, [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. 184].

R. v. Black, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 138; 98 N.R. 281; 93 N.S.R.(2d) 35; 242 A.P.R. 35; 50 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 70 C.R.(3d) 97; 47 C.R.R. 171, refd to. [para. 186].

R. v. Borden (J.R.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 145; 171 N.R. 1; 134 N.S.R.(2d) 321; 383 A.P.R. 321; 92 C.C.C.(3d) 404, refd to. [para. 186].

R. v. Smith (N.M.), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 714; 122 N.R. 203; 104 N.S.R.(2d) 233; 283 A.P.R. 233; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 313, refd to. [para. 186].

R. v. Sawatsky (W.L.) (1997), 103 O.A.C. 68; 118 C.C.C.(3d) 17 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 188].

R. v. Cancor Software Corp. et al. (1990), 40 O.A.C. 122; 58 C.C.C.(3d) 53 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 192].

R. v. Delaronde (J.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 213; 208 N.R. 72; 115 C.C.C.(3d) 370, refd to. [para. 192].

R. v. Arviv (1985), 8 O.A.C. 92; 19 C.C.C.(3d) 395 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1985] 1 S.C.R. v; 61 N.R. 237; 10 O.A.C. 158, refd to. [para. 194].

R. v. Ertel (1987), 20 O.A.C. 257; 35 C.C.C.(3d) 398 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1987] 2 S.C.R. vii; 86 N.R. 266; 24 O.A.C. 320, refd to. [para. 194].

Counsel:

J. Raftery, for the Crown;

R. Callahan, Q.C., for the defence.

Hill, J., of the Ontario Superior Court, heard these motions on April 27-30 and June 7 and 8, 1999, and released the following reasons for judgment on September 15, 1999.