Section 83.28 of the Criminal, (2004) 322 N.R. 205 (SCC)

JudgeMcLachlin, C.J.C., Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel, Deschamps and Fish, JJ.
CourtSupreme Court (Canada)
Case DateJune 23, 2004
JurisdictionCanada (Federal)
Citations(2004), 322 N.R. 205 (SCC);2004 SCC 42;184 CCC (3d) 449;240 DLR (4th) 81;[2005] 2 WWR 605;[2004] SCJ No 40 (QL);121 CRR (2d) 1;[2004] 2 SCR 248;33 BCLR (4th) 195;21 CR (6th) 82;199 BCAC 45;61 WCB (2d) 217;322 NR 205

Section 83.28 of the Criminal Code, Re (2004), 322 N.R. 205 (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: [2004] N.R. TBEd. JN.026

In The Matter Of an application under section 83.28 of the Criminal Code

(29872; 2004 SCC 42; 2004 CSC 42)

Indexed As: Application Under Section 83.28 of the Criminal Code, Re

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel, Deschamps and Fish, JJ.

June 23, 2004.

Summary:

Section 83.28 of the Criminal Code pro­vided for judicial investigative hearings in relation to terrorism offences. The appellant, a "Named Person", was ordered to attend and be compelled to answer questions under s. 83.28. The appellant applied to set aside the order, challenging the constitutional validity of s. 83.28.

The British Columbia Supreme Court dis­missed the application. The court ordered that its reasons would remain sealed until the conclusion of the investigative hearing or any earlier order of the court, but issued a Synopsis of Reasons for Judgment for public release respecting the general nature and result of the application. See [2003] B.C.T.C. Uned. 478. The appellant appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, Binnie, LeBel and Fish, JJ., dissenting, dismissed the appeal.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 1915

Crown counsel - Independence of - The Anti-Terrorism Act, S.C. 2001, created s. 83.28 of the Criminal Code, which pro­vid­ed for judicial investigative hearings in relation to terrorism offences - Under s. 83.28, a "Named Person" could be ordered to attend and be compelled to answer ques­tions - The Supreme Court of Canada rejected the argument that Crown counsel's independence was "com­promised by the judicial investigative hearing process, becom­ing impermissibly intertwined with the 'police task' of inves­tigation" - See para­graphs 93 to 95.

Civil Rights - Topic 3135

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Right to indepen­dent and impartial tribunal - The Anti-Terrorism Act, S.C. 2001, created s. 83.28 of the Criminal Code, which provided for judicial investigative hearings in relation to terror­ism offences - The appellant, a "Named Person", was ordered to attend and be compelled to answer questions un­der s. 83.28 - The appellant applied to set aside the order, challenging the consti­tutional validity of s. 83.28. - At issue, inter alia, was whether s. 83.28 infringed the prin­ciples of judicial independence and impar­tiality guaranteed by s. 11(d) of the Char­ter - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 11(d) did not apply because the appellant was not an accused - See para­graph 96.

Civil Rights - Topic 3157

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Right to just and fair trial - The Anti-Terrorism Act, S.C. 2001, created s. 83.28 of the Criminal Code, which provided for judicial investi­gative hearings in relation to terrorism offences - Under s. 83.28, a "Named Per­son" could be ordered to attend and be com­pelled to answer questions - One such Named Per­son was ordered to appear and answer questions respecting two Air India explosions, which killed over 300 people - Concurrently, the trial of two accused in relation to the explosions, neither of whom was the Named Person, was proceeding - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 83.28 and the order did not breach the ac­cused's fair trial rights by providing for pre-trial or mid-trial preparation or dis­covery for the Crown that was not avail­able to the defence - See paragraphs 97 to 102 and 109.

Civil Rights - Topic 4302

Protection against self-incrimination - General - Right to remain silent - The Anti-Terrorism Act, S.C. 2001, created s. 83.28 of the Criminal Code, which pro­vided for judicial investigative hearings in relation to terrorism offences - Under s. 83.28, a "Named Person" could be ordered to attend and be compelled to answer ques­tions - The appellant, a Named Person, applied to set aside the order - The Su­preme Court of Canada held that s. 83.28 did not infringe the appel­lant's s. 7 Charter rights, whether through the protection against self-incrimination, or through a broader right to silence - Section 83(10) provided both use and derivative use im­munity to a Named Person in rela­tion to criminal proceedings - However, in order to meet the requirements of s. 7, the proce­dural safeguards in s. 83.28 had to be extended to extradition and deportation proceedings - Where there was the poten­tial for such use by the state, the hearing judge had to make and, if necessary, vary the terms of an order, to properly provide use and derivative use immunity in extradi­tion and deportation proceedings - See paragraphs 67 to 79.

Courts - Topic 314

Judges - Independence of judiciary - Insti­tutional independence - The Anti-Terrorism Act, S.C. 2001, created s. 83.28 of the Criminal Code, which provided for judicial investigative hearings in relation to terror­ism offences - Under s. 83.28, a "Named Per­son" could be ordered to attend and be compelled to answer questions - The Su­preme Court of Canada held that s. 83.28 did not interfere with judicial inde­pendence or impartiality - See paragraphs 80 to 92 and 108.

Courts - Topic 592

Judges - Duties - Duty to conduct fair and impartial proceedings - [See Courts - Topic 314 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 1185

Offences against public order - Terrorism offences - Investigative hearings - The Anti-Terrorism Act, S.C. 2001, amended 10 statutes, including the Criminal Code - It created s. 83.28 of the Criminal Code, which provided for judicial investigative hearings in relation to terrorism offences - Under s. 83.28, a "Named Person" could be ordered to attend and be compelled to answer questions - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the purpose of the Anti-Terrorism Act was not the protection of "national security", but the prosecution and prevention of terrorism offences - The court discussed the scope of s. 83.28, including the role of a Named Person's counsel in the hearing - The court held that the participation of judges in s. 83.28 proceedings brought with it all that Cana­da's justice system imparted into the judi­cial function - The s. 83.28 proceeding could be viewed as a criminal proceeding, albeit unique in its application - The com­mon law evidentiary principles of rele­vance and fairness applied to s. 83.28, as did the evidentiary requirements of the Canada Evidence Act - See paragraphs 37 to 54.

Criminal Law - Topic 1185

Offences against public order - Terrorism offences - Investigative hearings - The Anti-Terrorism Act, S.C. 2001, created s. 83.28 of the Criminal Code, which pro­vided for judicial investigative hearings in relation to terrorism offences - Under s. 83.28, a "Named Person" could be ordered to attend and be compelled to answer ques­tions - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 83.28 effected only procedural change and applied retrospectively to the effects of past events - See paragraphs 55 to 66.

Criminal Law - Topic 1185

Offences against public order - Terrorism offences - Investigative hearings - [See Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 1915 , Civil Rights - Topic 3157 , Civil Rights - Topic 4302 and Courts - Topic 314 ].

Evidence - Topic 23

General and definitions - Canada Evidence Act - Application of - [See first Criminal Law - Topic 1185 ].

Statutes - Topic 6708

Operation and effect - Commencement, dura­tion and repeal - Retrospective and retroactive enactments - Procedural and substantive matters defined - [See second Criminal Law - Topic 1185 ].

Statutes - Topic 6715

Operation and effect - Commencement, duration and repeal - Retrospective and retroactive enactments - Retrospective or retroactive operation - Procedural matters -[See second Criminal Law - Topic 1185 ].

Cases Noticed:

Terminiello v. Chicago (1949), 337 U.S. 1 (U.S.S.C.), refd to. [paras. 6, 113].

H.C. 5100/94 Pub. Comm. Against Torture in Israel v. Israel (Government) 53(4) P.D. 817, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Reyat, [1991] B.C.J. No. 2006 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 11].

Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Sharpe (J.R.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 45; 264 N.R. 201; 146 B.C.A.C. 161; 239 W.A.C. 161; 2001 SCC 2, refd to. [para. 34].

Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 559; 287 N.R. 248; 166 B.C.A.C. 1; 271 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 42, refd to. [para. 34].

Davidson v. Slaight Communications Inc., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1038; 93 N.R. 183, refd to. [para. 35].

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, refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Lucas (J.D.) et al., [1998] 1 S.C.R. 439; 224 N.R. 161; 163 Sask.R. 161; 165 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 35].

Global Securities Corp. v. British Colum­bia Securities Commission et al., [2000] 1 S.C.R. 494; 252 N.R. 290; 134 B.C.A.C. 207; 219 W.A.C. 207; 2000 SCC 21, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Gladue (J.T.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 688; 238 N.R. 1; 121 B.C.A.C. 161; 198 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 37].

Reference Re Firearms Act (Can.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 783; 254 N.R. 201; 161 A.R. 201; 225 W.A.C. 201; 2000 SCC 31, refd to. [para. 37].

Phillips v. Nova Scotia (Commission of Inquiry into the Westray Mine Tragedy) - see Phillips et al. v. Richard, J.

Phillips et al. v. Richard, J., [1995] 2 S.C.R. 97; 180 N.R. 1; 141 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 403 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 47].

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, refd to. [para. 51].

Angus v. Hart and Sun Alliance Insurance Co., [1988] 2 S.C.R. 256; 87 N.R. 200; 30 O.A.C. 210, refd to. [para. 56].

Smith (Howard) Paper Mills Ltd. v. R., [1957] S.C.R. 403, refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. Wildman, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 311; 55 N.R. 27; 5 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 57].

Wright v. Hale (1860), 6 H. & N. 227; 158 E.R. 94, refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Ali, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 221; 27 N.R. 243; 21 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 361; 56 A.P.R. 361, refd to. [para. 63].

R. v. R.J.S., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 451; 177 N.R. 81; 78 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 67].

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, refd to. [para. 67].

R. v. Malmo-Levine (D.) et al., [2003] 3 S.C.R. 571; 314 N.R. 1; 191 B.C.A.C. 1; 314 W.A.C. 1; 2003 SCC 74, refd to. [para. 68].

Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada (Attorney Gen­eral), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 76; 315 N.R. 201; 183 O.A.C. 1; 2004 SCC 4, refd to. [para. 68].

R. v. Jarvis (W.J.), [2002] 3 S.C.R. 757; 295 N.R. 201; 317 A.R. 1; 284 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 73, refd to. [para. 70].

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. 70].

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. 70].

United States of America v. Burns and Rafay, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 283; 265 N.R. 212; 148 B.C.A.C. 1; 243 W.A.C. 1; 2001 SCC 7, refd to. [para. 75].

Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 3; 281 N.R. 1; 2002 SCC 1, refd to. [para. 75].

Beauregard v. Canada, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 56; 70 N.R. 1, refd to. [paras. 80, 170].

Ell et al. v. Alberta, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 857; 306 N.R. 1; 330 A.R. 201; 299 W.A.C. 232; 2003 SCC 35, refd to. [paras. 80, 172].

Reference Re Remuneration of Judges of the Provincial Court (P.E.I.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 3; 217 N.R. 1; 206 A.R. 1; 156 W.A.C. 1; 121 Man.R.(2d) 1; 158 W.A.C. 1; 156 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1; 483 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [paras. 81, 170].

Reference Re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266, refd to. [para. 81].

Mackin v. New Brunswick (Minister of Finance) - see Rice, P.C.J. v. New Brunswick.

Rice, P.C.J. v. New Brunswick, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 405; 282 N.R. 201; 245 N.B.R.(2d) 299; 636 A.P.R. 299; 2002 SCC 13, refd to. [paras. 82, 170].

R. v. Lippé - see Lippé et autres v. Québec (Procureur général) et autres.

Lippé et autres v. Québec (Procureur gén­éral) et autres, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 114; 128 N.R. 1; 39 Q.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 82].

R. v. Valente, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 673; 64 N.R. 1; 14 O.A.C. 79, refd to. [paras. 83, 170].

Québec (Ministre de la Justice) v. Ther­rien, J., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 3; 270 N.R. 1; 2001 SCC 35, refd to. [paras. 85, 175].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Dagenais et al., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835; 175 N.R. 1; 76 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 91].

R. v. Mentuck (C.G.), [2001] 3 S.C.R. 442; 277 N.R. 160; 163 Man.R.(2d) 1; 269 W.A.C. 1; 2001 SCC 76, refd to. [para. 91].

R. v. Regan (G.A.), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 297; 282 N.R. 1; 201 N.S.R.(2d) 63; 629 A.P.R. 63; 2002 SCC 12, refd to. [para. 94].

Boucher v. R., [1955] S.C.R. 16, refd to. [para. 95].

Lemay v. R., [1952] 1 S.C.R. 232, refd to. [para. 97].

Proulx v. Québec (Procureur général), [2001] 3 S.C.R. 9; 276 N.R. 201; 2001 SCC 66, refd to. [para. 97].

Ruby v. Canada (Solicitor General) - see Ruby v. Royal Canadian Mounted Police et al.

Ruby v. Royal Canadian Mounted Police et al., [2002] 4 S.C.R. 3; 295 N.R. 353; 2002 SCC 75, refd to. [para. 98].

Housen v. Nikolaisen et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235; 286 N.R. 1; 219 Sask.R. 1; 272 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 33, refd to. [paras. 100, 148].

Reference Re Persons of Japanese Race, [1946] S.C.R. 248, affd. [1947] 1 D.L.R. 577 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 114].

R. v. Skogman, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 93; 54 N.R. 34, refd to. [para. 123].

R. v. Arviv (1985), 8 O.A.C. 92; 51 O.R.(2d) 551 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 125].

R. v. Esposito (1985), 12 O.A.C. 350; 24 C.C.C.(3d) 88 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 131].

R. v. F.J.U., [1995] 3 S.C.R. 764; 186 N.R. 365; 85 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 135].

R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326; 130 N.R. 277; 120 A.R. 161; 8 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 136].

R. v. Scott, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 979; 116 N.R. 361; 43 O.A.C. 277, refd to. [para. 157].

R. v. Jewitt, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 128; 61 N.R. 159, refd to. [para. 164].

R. v. Power (E.), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 601; 165 N.R. 241; 117 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 269; 365 A.P.R. 269, refd to. [para. 164].

R. v. O'Connor (H.P.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 411; 191 N.R. 1; 68 B.C.A.C. 1; 112 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 164].

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immi­gration) v. Tobiass et al., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 391; 218 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 164].

Statutes Noticed:

Anti-Terrorism Act, S.C. 2001, c. 41, generally [para. 2].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, sect. 83.28 [Appendix].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Barak, Aharon, Foreword: A Judge on Judging: The Role of a Supreme Court in a Democracy (2002), 116 Harv. L. Rev. 16, pp. 148 [para. 7]; 150, 151 [para. 5].

British Columbia, Criminal Justice Branch, Media Statement, Inderjit Singh Reyat Pleads Guilty to Role in Air India Ex­plo­sion (February 2003), www.ag.gov.bc.ca/ airindia/cjb_ms_03-02.htm, generally [para. 129].

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, 1st Sess., 37th Parliament (October 15, 2001), vol. 137, p. 6048 [para. 38].

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, 1st Sess., 37th Parliament (October 16, 2001), vol. 137, p. 6166 [para. 139].

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, 1st Sess., 37th Parliament, (November 28, 2001), vol. 137, p. 7620 [para. 88].

Canada, Special Senate Committee, Pro­ceedings on Subject Matter of Bill C-36, 1st Sess., 37th Parliament (October 29, 2001), Issue No. 4, p. 4:4 et seq. [para. 38].

Cicero, Pro Milone 14, generally [para. 5].

Cohen, Stanley A., Safeguards in and Justifications for Canada's New Anti-Terrorism Act (2002-2003), 14 N.J.C.L. 99, generally [para. 29].

Cudmore, Gordon D., Cohate on Discovery (2nd Ed. 1993) (2001 Looseleaf Update, Release 3), p. 1-11 [para. 141].

Daniels, Ronald J., Macklem, Patrick, and Roach, Kent, The Security of Freedom: Essays on Canada's Anti-Terrorism Bill (2001), p. 269 [para. 29].

Driedger, Elmer A., Construction of Stat­utes (2nd Ed. 1983), p. 87 [para. 34].

Driedger - see Sullivan, Ruth, Sullivan and Driedger on the Construction of Statutes (4th Ed. 2002).

Friedland, Martin L., Police Powers in Bill C-36, in Daniels, Ronald J., Macklem, Patrick and Roach, Kent, The Security of Freedom: Essays on Canada's Anti-Ter­rorism Bill (2001), p. 269 [para. 29].

Hansard - see Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates.

Jenkins, David, In Support of Canada's Anti-Terrorism Act: A Comparison of Canadian, British, and American Anti-Terrorism Law (2003), 66 Sask. L. Rev. 419, generally [para. 2].

Lederman, W.R., The Independence of the Judiciary, in Linden, A., The Canadian Judiciary (1976), p. 2 [para. 80].

Linden, A., The Canadian Judiciary (1976), p. 2 [para. 80].

Millard, Jeremy, Investigative Hearings under the Anti-Terrorism Act (2002), 60(1) U.T. Fac. L. Rev. 79, p. 81 [para. 74].

Paciocco, David M., Constitutional Casu­alties of September 11: Limiting the Legacy of the Anti-Terrorism Act (2002), 16 S.C.L.R.(2d) 185, pp. 231 [para. 74]; 232 [para. 84]; 233 [para. 186]; 235 [para. 90].

Sullivan, Ruth, Sullivan and Driedger on the Construction of Statutes (4th Ed. 2002), pp. 367 [para. 35]; 582 [paras. 56, 62]; 583 [para. 57].

Counsel:

Brian A. Crane, Q.C., Howard Rubin and Kenneth Westlake, for the appellant, the "Named Person";

Bernard Laprade and George Dolhai, for the respondent, the Attorney General of Canada;

Alexander Budlovsky and Mary T. Ainslie, for the respondent, the Attorney General of British Columbia;

William B. Smart, Q.C., and Brock Mart­land, for the respondent, Ripudaman Singh Malik;

Michael A. Code and Jonathan Dawe, for the respondent, Ajaib Singh Bagri;

Michael Bernstein and Sandy Tse, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Ontario;

John B. Laskin and Frank Cesario, for the intervener, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association;

Marie Henein and Jennifer Gleitman, for the intervener, the Federation of Law Societies of Canada;

Gregory P. Delbigio, for the intervener, the Canadian Bar Association;

Robert S. Anderson and Ludmila B. Herbst, for the interveners, The Van­couver Sun, The National Post and Glo­bal Television Network Inc.

Solicitors of Record:

Howard Rubin, North Vancouver, British Columbia, for the appellant, the "Named Person";

Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent, the Attorney General of Canada;

Attorney General of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the respondent, the Attorney General of British Columbia;

Smart & Williams, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the respondent, Ripuda­man Singh Malik;

Sack Goldblatt Mitchell, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent, Ajaib Singh Bagri;

Ministry of the Attorney General, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Ontario;

Torys, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association;

Henein & Associate, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the Federation of Law Societies of Canada;

Gregory P. Delbigio, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the intervener, the Cana­dian Bar Association;

Farris, Vaughan, Wills & Murphy, Van­couver, British Columbia, for the inter­veners, The Vancouver Sun, The Na­tion­al Post and Global Television Net­work Inc.

This appeal was heard on December 10 and 11, 2003, by McLachlin, C.J.C., Iaco­bucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel, Deschamps and Fish, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court delivered reasons for judgment on June 23, 2004, in both official languages, including the following opinions:

Iacobucci and Arbour, JJ. (McLachlin, C.J.C., and Major, J., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 106;

Bastarache, J. (Deschamps, J., concur­ring) - see paragraphs 107 to 110;

Binnie, J., dissenting - see paragraphs 111 to 168;

LeBel, J., dissenting (Fish, J., concur­ring) - see paragraphs 169 to 192.

To continue reading

Request your trial
223 practice notes
  • Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v. Chhina, 2019 SCC 29
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • May 10, 2019
    ...Citizenship & Immigration) v. Thanabalasingham, 2004 FCA 4, [2004] 3 F.C.R. 572; Application under s. 83.28 of the Criminal Code (Re), 2004 SCC 42, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 248; Brown v. Canada (Public Safety), 2018 ONCA 14, 420 D.L.R. (4th) 124; Ali v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emer......
  • R. v. Dineley, 2012 SCC 58
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • November 2, 2012
    ...19 C.C.C. (3d) 174; Angus v. Sun Alliance Insurance Co., [1988] 2 S.C.R. 256; Application under s. 83.28 of the Criminal Code (Re), 2004 SCC 42, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 248; Wildman v. The Queen, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 311; R. v. Gervais (1978), 43 C.C.C. (2d) 533; R. v. Ali, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 221; R. v. Lo......
  • British Columbia v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. et al., (2005) 218 B.C.A.C. 1 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • June 8, 2005
    ...A.R. 201; 299 W.A.C. 201; 2003 SCC 35, refd to. [para. 44]. Application Under Section 83.28 of the Criminal Code, Re, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 35; 322 N.R. 205; 199 B.C.A.C. 45; 326 W.A.C. 45; 2004 SCC 42, refd to. [para. Rice, P.C.J. v. New Brunswick, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 405; 282 N.R. 201; 245 N.B.R.(2......
  • R. v. Sharma, 2022 SCC 39
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • November 4, 2022
    ...2016 SCC 14, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 180; R. v. Moriarity, 2015 SCC 55, [2015] 3 S.C.R. 485; Application under s. 83.28 of the Criminal Code (Re), 2004 SCC 42, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 248; Canada (Attorney General) v. Whaling, 2014 SCC 20, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 392; R. v. Heywood, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 761; R. v. Appu......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
178 cases
  • Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v. Chhina, 2019 SCC 29
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • May 10, 2019
    ...Citizenship & Immigration) v. Thanabalasingham, 2004 FCA 4, [2004] 3 F.C.R. 572; Application under s. 83.28 of the Criminal Code (Re), 2004 SCC 42, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 248; Brown v. Canada (Public Safety), 2018 ONCA 14, 420 D.L.R. (4th) 124; Ali v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emer......
  • R. v. Dineley, 2012 SCC 58
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • November 2, 2012
    ...19 C.C.C. (3d) 174; Angus v. Sun Alliance Insurance Co., [1988] 2 S.C.R. 256; Application under s. 83.28 of the Criminal Code (Re), 2004 SCC 42, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 248; Wildman v. The Queen, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 311; R. v. Gervais (1978), 43 C.C.C. (2d) 533; R. v. Ali, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 221; R. v. Lo......
  • British Columbia v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. et al., (2005) 218 B.C.A.C. 1 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • June 8, 2005
    ...A.R. 201; 299 W.A.C. 201; 2003 SCC 35, refd to. [para. 44]. Application Under Section 83.28 of the Criminal Code, Re, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 35; 322 N.R. 205; 199 B.C.A.C. 45; 326 W.A.C. 45; 2004 SCC 42, refd to. [para. Rice, P.C.J. v. New Brunswick, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 405; 282 N.R. 201; 245 N.B.R.(2......
  • R. v. Sharma, 2022 SCC 39
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • November 4, 2022
    ...SCC 14, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 180; R. v. Moriarity, 2015 SCC 55, [2015] 3 S.C.R. 485; Application under s. 83.28 of the Criminal Code (Re), 2004 SCC 42, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 248; Canada (Attorney General) v. Whaling, 2014 SCC 20, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 392; R. v. Heywood, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 761; R. v.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 firm's commentaries
43 books & journal articles
  • Self-Incrimination
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Law of Evidence. Eighth Edition
    • June 25, 2020
    ...in Chapter 9, Section 2, “The Calling of Witnesses.” 26 R v Bagri ( sub nom An Application under s 83.28 of the Criminal Code ), [2004] 2 SCR 248 at para 70 [ Bagri ]. Self-Incrimination 387 includes the common law non- compellability of accused persons at their trials but extends further t......
  • The Prosecutor
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Ethics and Criminal Law. Second Edition
    • June 19, 2015
    ...Report, above note 100 at 39. 159 Regan , above note 18. 160 Ibid at paras 65–66 and 71. 161 Ibid at para 64. See also R v Bagri , 2004 SCC 42 at para 94 [ Bagri ]. The Prosecutor 613 point before which the Crown is precluded from involvement in a criminal matter. 162 Regan thus rejects the......
  • Table of cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Criminal Procedure. Fourth Edition
    • June 23, 2020
    ...264, 353 BCAC 244 ................................................................ 56 Application under s 83.28 of the Criminal Code (Re), 2004 SCC 42, 184 CCC (3d) 449, [2004] SCJ No 40 ............................................... 13, 67–68 Attorney General (Quebec) v Cohen, [1979] 2 SC......
  • Engaging Section 7
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Fundamental Justice: Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Second Edition
    • June 22, 2019
    ..., 2007 MBCA 40. 336 Ibid at para 69. 337 R v Tinker , 2017 ONCA 552 at para 70; Re Application Under s 83.28 of the Criminal Code , 2004 SCC 42 at para 67. 338 Arthur Ripstein, Force and Freedom (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009) ch 8. It is dificult to ind explicit statements ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT