R. v. White (J.K.),

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Judge: Bastarache and Binnie, JJ.
• Citation: (1999), 240 N.R. 1 (SCC),[1999] CarswellBC 1224,135 CCC (3d) 257,201 WAC 161,42 MVR (3d) 161,42 WCB (2d) 391,1999 CanLII 689 (SCC),[1999] SCJ No 28 (QL),24 CR (5th) 201,240 NR 1,[1999] 2 SCR 417,63 CRR (2d) 1,174 DLR (4th) 111,123 BCAC 161,JE 99-1222
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Date: 10 June 1999

R. v. White (J.K.) (1999), 240 N.R. 1 (SCC)

MLB Headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Temp. Cite: [1999] N.R. TBEd. JN.017

Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. Joann Kimberley White (respondent)

(26473)

Indexed As: R. v. White (J.K.)

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé,

Gonthier, McLachlin, Iacobucci,

Bastarache and Binnie, JJ.

June 10, 1999.

Summary:

The accused was charged with leaving the scene of an accident contrary to s. 252(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicle Act. Three statements made by the accused were the sole evidence identifying the accused as the driver in­volved. The trial judge held that all three statements were statutorily compelled by the accident reporting requirements of s. 61 of the Act and that admission of the statements in a criminal trial would violate the ac­cused's right to protection against self-in­crimination (Charter, s. 7). The trial judge held that the appropriate remedy was to ex­clude the statements under s. 24(1) of the Charter. Absent further evidence, the accused was acquitted. The Crown appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, Southin, J.A., dissenting, in a judgment reported 102 B.C.A.C. 28; 166 W.A.C. 28, dismissed the appeal. The Crown appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, L'Heureux­-Dubé, J., dissenting, dismissed the appeal. Statements made under compul­sion of s. 61 of the Motor Vehicle Act were inadmissible in criminal proceedings against the declarant because their admission would violate the prin­ciple against self-incrimi­nation. All three statements were properly found to have been made under compulsion. Finally, the trial judge did not err in invok­ing s. 24(1) of the Charter to exclude the evidence.

Civil Rights - Topic 4328

Protection against self-incrimination - Self-incriminating statements - Statements made under statutory compulsion - The Supreme Court of Canada held that state­ments to po­lice compelled under the acci­dent report­ing requirement of s. 61 of the B.C. Motor Vehicle Act were inadmissible in criminal proceedings against the declarant, because their admission would violate the dec­lar­ant's s. 7 Charter right respecting self-incrimination - See para­graphs 30 to 80.

Civil Rights - Topic 4328

Protection against self-incrimination - Self-incriminating statements - Statements made un­der statutory compulsion - The accused driver struck a motorist stopped on the high­way to change a tire, but did not stop - The next day, the accused phoned police to report the accident, aware of her legal obligation to do so (first state­ment) - The officer arrived to investigate - The accused admitted to hitting the man and not stop­ping because she panicked (second state­ment) - The officer advised her of her Charter rights, then waited outside the house while the accused spoke with a law­yer - The accused then essen­tially repeated her earlier statement (third state­ment) - The Supreme Court of Canada, after dis­cuss­ing the requirements for a "compelled" statement, affirmed that all three statements were made under compul­sion - See para­graphs 30 to 80.

Civil Rights - Topic 4328

Protection against self-incrimination - Self-incriminating statements - Statements made under statutory compulsion - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed when compli­ance with the accident reporting require­ment of s. 61 of the B.C. Motor Vehicle Act resulted in a "compelled statement" - The court stated that "the test for compul­sion ... is whether, at the time that the accident was reported by the driver, the driver gave the report on the basis of an honest and reasonably held belief that he or she was required by law to report the accident to the person to whom the report was given. The require­ment that the acci­dent report be given on the basis of a subjective belief exists because compul­sion, by definition, implies an absence of consent. If a declarant gives an accident report freely, without believing or being influenced by the fact that he or she is required by law to do so, then it cannot be said that the statute is the cause of the declarant's statements." - See para­graphs 75 to 76.

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - The accused was charged with leaving the scene of an accident con­trary to s. 252(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicle Act - Three statements made by the ac­cused were the sole evidence ident­ifying the accused as the driver involved - The trial judge held that all three state­ments were statutorily compelled by s. 61 of the Act and that admission of the state­ments in a criminal trial violated the ac­cused's right to protection against self-incrimination (Charter, s. 7) - The trial judge held that the appropriate remedy was to exclude the statements under s. 24(1) of the Charter - The Supreme Court of Canada held that it was permissible to exclude evidence from trial under s. 24(1) (appropriate and just remedy) where the admission itself would vi­o­late s. 7 of the Charter (self-incrimina­tion) - See para­graphs 83 to 89.

Civil Rights - Topic 8544

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Particular words and phrases - Appropriate and just remedy - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8368].

Criminal Law - Topic 5339

Evidence - Witnesses - Confessions and voluntary statements - Admissibility - Statements made under statutory compul­sion - [See all Civil Rights - Topic 4328].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Fitzpatrick (B.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 154; 188 N.R. 248; 65 B.C.A.C. 1; 106 W.A.C. 1, dist. [para. 16].

Thomson Newspapers Ltd. v. Director of Investigation and Research, Combines Investigation Act et al., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 425; 106 N.R. 161; 39 O.A.C. 161; 54 C.C.C.(3d) 417; 76 C.R.(3d) 129; 67 D.L.R.(4th) 161; 29 C.P.R.(3d) 97; 47 C.R.R. 1, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Spyker (1990), 63 C.C.C.(3d) 125 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Stillman, [1994] B.C.J. No. 646 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Hundal (S.), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 867; 149 N.R. 189; 22 B.C.A.C. 241; 38 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. R.J.S., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 451; 177 N.R. 81; 78 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Hebert, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 151; 110 N.R. 1; 77 C.R.(3d) 145; 57 C.C.C.(3d) 1; [1990] 5 W.W.R. 1; 47 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. M.B.P., [1994] 1 S.C.R. 555; 165 N.R. 321; 70 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Jones (S.), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 229; 166 N.R. 321; 43 B.C.A.C. 241; 69 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 40].

British Columbia Securities Commission v. Branch and Levitt, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 3; 180 N.R. 241; 60 B.C.A.C. 1; 99 W.A.C. 1; 97 C.C.C.(3d) 505, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Lyons, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 309; 80 N.R. 161; 82 N.S.R.(2d) 271; 207 A.P.R. 271; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 45].

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, refd to. [para. 47].

Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General) et al., [1993] 3 S.C.R. 519; 158 N.R. 1; 34 B.C.A.C. 1; 56 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. Dedman, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 2; 60 N.R. 34; 11 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. Finlay, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 103; 156 N.R. 374; 113 Sask.R. 241; 52 W.A.C. 241; 105 D.L.R.(4th) 699, refd to. [para. 54].

Walker v. R., [1939] S.C.R. 214; 71 C.C.C. 305, refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. Hodgson, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 449, refd to. [para. 62].

Starr et al. v. Houlden, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1366; 110 N.R. 81; 41 O.A.C. 161; 68 D.L.R.(4th) 641, refd to. [para. 72].

R. v. Therens, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 613; 59 N.R. 122; 40 Sask.R. 122; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 655; [1985] 4 W.W.R. 286, refd to. [para. 84].

R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276; 56 C.R.(3d) 193; [1987] 3 W.W.R. 699, refd to. [para. 84].

R. v. Strachan, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 980; 90 N.R. 273, refd to. [para. 84].

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, refd to. [para. 86].

Schreiber v. Canada (Attorney General), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 841; 225 N.R. 297, refd to. [para. 87].

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, refd to. [para. 87].

R. v. Schmautz, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 398; 106 N.R. 81; 53 C.C.C.(3d) 556, refd to. [para. 115].

Ibrahim v. R., [1914] A.C. 599 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 118].

Boudreau v. R., [1949] S.C.R. 262, refd to. [para. 118].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 7 [para. 38]; sect. 24(1) [para. 83].

Motor Vehicle Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 288, sect. 61(1), sect. 61(1.1) [para. 11]; sect. 61(4) [para. 12]; sect. 61(7) [para. 13].

Counsel:

William F. Ehrcke, Q.C., for the appellant;

Peter Burns, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Attorney General of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., for the appellant;

Peter Burns, La Ronge, Saskatchewan, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on November 13, 1998, before Lamer, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Bastarache and Binnie, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On June 10, 1999, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official languages and the following opinions were filed:

Iacobucci, J. (Lamer, C.J.C., Gonthier, McLachlin, Bastarache and Binnie, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 94;

L'Heureux-Dubé, J., dissenting - see paragraphs 95 to 120.