R. v. Young (B.), (2001) 197 N.S.R.(2d) 82 (ProvCt)

• Judge: Ross, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: November 14, 2000
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: (2001), 197 N.S.R.(2d) 82 (ProvCt);2001 NSPC 22

R. v. Young (B.) (2001), 197 N.S.R.(2d) 82 (ProvCt);

 616 A.P.R. 82

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. OC.007

Her Majesty The Queen v. Brenda Young

(944271; 2001 NSPC 22)

Indexed As: R. v. Young (B.)

Nova Scotia Provincial Court

Ross, P.C.J.

September 25, 2001.

Summary:

The accused mother of two children was charged with welfare fraud (Criminal Code, s. 380(1)) after revealing, through statements to a Family Benefits Program official, that the father of her dependent children lived with her for a portion of time she received assistance. A voir dire was held to determine the admissibility of the statements. At issue was (1) whether the statements constituted involuntary confessions given under duress or threat to a person in authority; (2) whether the accused was detained and denied her right to counsel (Charter, s. 10(b)); and (3) whether the statements were compelled by statute and violated her right against self-incrimination (Charter, s. 7).

The Nova Scotia Provincial Court excluded the statements under s. 24(1) of the Charter. The statements were voluntary and the accused was not detained (no denial of right to counsel). However, the statutorily com­pelled statements were taken in a context resulting in violation of the accused's s. 7 right not to incriminate herself.

Civil Rights - Topic 3604

Detention and imprisonment - Detention - What constitutes detention - The accused mother of two children was charged with welfare fraud (Criminal Code, s. 380(1)) after revealing, through statements to a Family Benefits Program official, that the father of her dependent children lived with her for a portion of time she received assistance - The accused sought exclusion of the statements on the ground that when she was interviewed by the official, she was detained and not advised of her right to counsel - The Nova Scotia Provincial Court held that the accused was not detained - Accordingly, her right to coun­sel was not denied - The accused chose to go to the official's office rather than her own home - The interview was not manda­tory and the accused was free to go after the meeting - The court stated that "while there is undoubtedly an underlying sense of compulsion emanating from the statute and her financial dependence, I do not see her interview as a detention within the meaning of s. 10(b)" - See paragraph 19.

Civil Rights - Topic 4328

Protection against self-incrimination - Self-incriminating statements - Statements made under statutory compulsion - The accused mother of two children was charged with welfare fraud (Criminal Code, s. 380(1)) after revealing, through statements to a Family Benefits Program official, that the father of her dependent children lived with her for a portion of time she received assistance - The accused sought exclusion of the statements on the ground that the statements were compelled by statute and violated her right against self-incrimination (Charter, s. 7) - The accused knew that if she failed to give a statement the official had the power to terminate her assistance -The interview was adversarial and con­frontational - The Nova Scotia Provin­cial Court held that the statements were statu­torily compelled and violated the accused's right to be protected from self-incrimi­nation - Accordingly, the court excluded the statements under s. 24(1) of the Char­ter - See paragraphs 23 to 45.

Civil Rights - Topic 4613

Right to counsel - General - Requirement of arrest or detention and notice of reasons for - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3604 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4328 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5339

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

Criminal Law - Topic 5344

Evidence and witnesses - Confessions and voluntary statements - Statements required by statute - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4328 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5353

Evidence and witnesses - Confessions and voluntary statements - Who is a person in authority - The accused mother of two children was charged with welfare fraud (Criminal Code, s. 380(1)) after revealing, through statements to a Family Benefits Program official, that the father of her dependent children lived with her for a portion of time she received assistance - The accused sought exclusion of the state­ments on the ground that the statements constituted involuntary confessions given under duress or threat to a person in au­thority - The Nova Scotia Provincial Court held although the official was a "person in authority", the statements were the product of an operating mind, given willingly, and not as a result of any threats, promises or inducements - Accordingly, the statements were voluntarily made - See paragraphs 20 to 22.

Criminal Law - Topic 5355

Evidence and witnesses - Confessions and voluntary statements - Whether statement was made freely and voluntarily - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5353 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Morin (1987), 21 O.A.C. 38 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. White (J.K.) (1999), 240 N.R. 1; 123 B.C.A.C. 161; 201 W.A.C. 161; 135 C.C.C.(3d) 257 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Jones (S.) (1994), 166 N.R. 321; 43 B.C.A.C. 241; 69 W.A.C. 241; 89 C.C.C.(3d) 353 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Fitzpatrick (B.) (1995), 188 N.R. 248; 65 B.C.A.C. 1; 106 W.A.C. 1; 102 C.C.C.(3d) 144 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. D'Amour, [2000] O.J. No. 5122 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Ling (C.K.) (2000), 144 B.C.A.C. 92; 236 W.A.C. 92 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Wilder (D.M.) (2000), 132 B.C.A.C. 122; 215 W.A.C. 122; 142 C.C.C.(3d) 418 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Jarvis (W.J.) (2000), 271 A.R. 263; 234 W.A.C. 263; 149 C.C.C.(3d) 498 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Taylor, [2001] B.C.J. No. 801 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Gill, [1999] S.J. No. 734 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Omstead (S.) (1998), 87 O.T.C. 300 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Syed, [2000] CarswellOnt. 3291 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Beals (1991), 108 N.S.R.(2d) 66; 294 A.P.R. 66 (Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Diggs (F.K.) (1993), 123 N.S.R.(2d) 34; 340 A.P.R. 34 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 33].

Counsel:

Darlene MacRury, for the Crown;

William Burchell, Q.C., for the accused.

This voir dire was held on November 14, 2000 and March 29 and May 3, 2001, before Ross, P.C.J., of the Nova Scotia Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on September 25, 2001.