S.C.C. File No.: 32865 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal of Alberta) BETWEEN: CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION, EDMONTON JOURNAL, A DIVISION OF CANWEST MEDIA WORKS PUBLICATIONS INC., AND CTV TELEVISION INC. Appellants -and-
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent -and-
MICHAEL JAMES WHITE Respondent
-and-
EDMONTON SUN, A DIVISION OF SUN MEDIA CORPORATION Respondent AND BETWEEN: EDMONTON SUN, A DIVISION OF SUN MEDIA CORPORATION Appellant -and-
CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION Respondent -and-
EDMONTON JOURNAL, A DIVISION OF CANWEST MEDIAWORKS PUBLICATIONS INC. AND CTV TELEVISION INC. Respondents -and-
BELL MEDIA PUBLISHING INC., CARRYING ON BUSINESS AS THE GLOBE AND MAIL Respondent -and-
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent -and-
MICHAEL JAMES WHITE Respondent FACTUM OF THE RESPONDENT (APPELLANT), MICHAEL JAMES WHITE 2
Laura K. Stevens, Q.C. Colleen Bauman Kirk Starkie Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP Dawson Stevens Duckett & Shaigec 500 - 30 Metcalfe Street 300, 9924 - 106 Street Ottawa ON K1P 5L4 Edmonton AB T5K 1C4
Tel: 780.424.9058 Tel: 613.235.5327 Fax: 780.425.0172 Fax: 613.235.3041 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] [email protected] Agents for Counsel for Michael White Counsel for Michael James White
Fred Kozak, Q.C. K. Scott McLean Reynolds, Mirth, Richards & Farmer LLP Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP 3200 Manulife Place, 10180 -101 Street 1420 - 99 Bank Street Edmonton AB T5J 3W8 Ottawa ON K1 P 1H4
Tel: 780.425.9510 Tel: 613.783.9699 Fax: 780.429.3044 Fax: 613.783.9690 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]
Counsel for the Appellants/Respondents Agents for Appellants/Respondents Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Edmonton Journal, a Division of CanWest Edmonton Journal, a Division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications Inc. and CTV MediaWorks Publications Inc. and CTV Television Inc., Bell Globemedia Television Inc., Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc., carrying on business as he Publishing Inc., carrying on business as he Globe and Mail Globe and Mail
Jolaine Antonio Henry S. Brown, Q.C. Attorney General of Alberta Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP 300, 332-6 Avenue S.W. 2600 - 160 Elgin Street Calgary, AB T2P OB2 Ottawa ON K1 P 1C3
Tel: (403) 297-6005 Tel: 613.233.1781 Fax: (403) 297-3453 Fax: 613.788.8433 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]
Counsel for the Respondent, Her Majesty Agents for the Respondent, Her Majesty the Queen the Queen Barry Zalmanowitz, Q.C. K. Scott McLean Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP 2900,10180 - 101 Street 1420 - 99 Bank Street Edmonton AB T5J 3V5 Ottawa ON K1 P 1 H4
Tel: 780.423.7344 Tel: 613.783.9699 Fax: 780.423.7276 Fax: 613.783.9690 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]
Counsel for the Appellant, The Edmonton Agent for Appellant, The Edmonton Sun Sun
Fran~ois Lacasse Director of Public Prosecutions of Canada 284 Wellington Street, 2nd Floor Ottawa, ON K1A OH8
Tel: 613.957.4770 Fax: 613.941.7865 Email: [email protected]
Agent for the Intervener, Director of Public Prosecutions of Canada
Robert E. Houston, Q.C. Burke Robertson 70 Gloucester Street Ottawa, ON K2P OA2
Tel: 613.556.2058 Fax: 613.235.4430 Email: [email protected]
Agent for the Intervener, Attorney General of Ontario 4
Jonathan C. Lisus Colin S. Baxter McCarthy Tetrault LLP McCarthy Tetrault LLP Toronto-Dominion Bank Tower 1400-40 Elgin Street Suite 5300 Ottawa, ON K1 P 5K6 Toronto, ON M5K 1E6 Tel: 613.238.2000 T: 416.601.7848 Fax: 613.563.9386 Fax: 416.868.0673 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Agent for the Intervener, Canadian Civil Counsel for the Intervener, Canadian Civil Liberties Association Liberties Association Table of Contents
Page
PART 1- OVERVIEW AND STATEMENT OF FACTS ...... 1
A. Overview of the Appeal ...... 1
B. History of the Proceedings ...... 3
PART II - QUESTIONS IN ISSUE ...... 6
PART III - STATEMENT OF ARGUMENT ...... 6
A. Jurisdiction ...... 6
B. Pressing and Substantial Objective ...... 7
C. Rational Connection ...... 13
D. Minimallmpairment...... 16
E. Salutary vs. Deleterious Effects ...... 17
F. Remedy ...... 19
PART IV - SUBMISSIONS AS TO COSTS ...... 20
PART V - ORDER SOUGHT ...... 20
PART VI - TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...... 22
PART VII - STATUTORY PROVISIONS ...... 23 PART 1- OVERVIEW AND STATEMENT OF FACTS
A. Overview of the Appeal
1. Constitutional values must be examined and re-examined in the context of current and changing social reality. One of the changes relevant to this appeal is the increased recognition of the importance of freedom of expression and open court proceedings in the last fifteen years. Another, over the same time span, is the exponential growth of the Internet and the instant, uncontrolled and constant publicity it provides. Professional journalists are no longer the largest source of public comment about legal proceedings.
2. For an accused caught in the eye of the hurricane, media attention is a personal agony. Its effect on his or her life can be permanently damaging, regardless of the outcome of the criminal case. It can be the most serious consequence of the criminal proceeding. Protection from this harm, however, is not the purpose of the ban on publication of the bail proceedings provided for in section 517 of the 1 Criminal Code .
3. Section 517 has one overriding objective, to prevent irreparable harm to the accused's right to a fair trial. To ensure that this is not compromised in the very first proceeding likely to take place, the bail hearing, it is mandatory upon the accused's request.
4. It must be mandatory because of the nature, timing and importance of the bail proceeding. The accused is at his or her most vulnerable, the focus of the bail proceeding is often on matters which will be completely inadmissible at trial, and the need for expediency is greatest.
1 Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, as amended ("Criminal Code"); [Factum of Appellant Edmonton Sun ("Sun Statutes") Tab D) 2
5. Section 517 is only one critical part of a body of law, both statutory and common law, which is intended to prevent prejudice from inadmissible evidence being heard by the jury. If this provision is struck, it is only the first in a series of dominoes likely to fall. The result will be a catastrophic blow to trial fairness and the right to a jury trial in this country.
6. The Alberta Court of Appeal2 found that section 517 was saved by section 1 of the Charter3 and therefore did not have to consider remedy. Should this Court find that it is not so saved, then the Respondent White asks the Court to not simply strike it, but to find a balance considered acceptable.
4 7. In Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd. v. Canada , the majority of the Ontario Court of Appeal read down the mandatory ban so that it applied only to those cases where a jury trial was possible. The Respondent White is in support of that position.
8. If this Court finds that restricting its application to possible jury cases is not sufficient to save the section, then the Respondent White asks that the Court read in a provision for the media to apply to lift the ban on notice. This would be preferable to a discretionary ban, which will leave the accused in a very difficult position. An ability to challenge the ban in a timely fashion, on notice, would limit the impact to those accused for whom it is relevant, and not over-extend the already very limited resources of the accused generally.
2 R. v. White, 2008 ABCA 294,437 A.R. 130; (Joint Record of Appellants ("JRA"), Tab II
3 Part 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11, s. 2 ("Charter"); [Sun Statutes Tab AJ
4 2009 CarswellOnt 301, 2009 ONCA 59, 94 O.R. (3d) 82; [Edmonton Sun Authorities ("ESA"), Tab 421 3 B. History of the Proceedings
9. Michael White was charged with second degree murder after the body of his wife was found in northwest Edmonton. The case attracted a crushing level of media attention at all levels of the proceedings.
10. A publication ban was requested by counsel on behalf of White at his judicial interim release hearing before Brooker, J. of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench pursuant to section 517 of the Criminal Code. Mr. Justice Brooker made the Order, as is required by the section. No notice had been given to the media. As the ban was mandatory upon defence request, notice to the media was not required by statute, case law or the Practice Rules. White was granted release, 5 on conditions, by Mr. Justice Brooker on October 7,2005 .
11. It is submitted on behalf of the media Appellants that this decision led to public outrage. It is certainly true that the media gave considerable coverage to some members of the public who expressed such outrage. A petition was circulated for a period of time which sought to revoke White's release and to change the bail provisions which permitted it.
12. The Crown sought, and was granted leave by the Alberta Court of Appeal, to review the Judicial Interim Release Order made by Brooker, J. The Crown's application was granted and the Order for Judicial Interim Release was vacated 6 by the Court of Appeal . White was returned to prison to await his trial. Although requested by the Respondent White, the Court of Appeal declined to grant a discretionary order banning publication of the s. 6807 review proceedings.
5 R. v. White (7 October 2005); [JRA Tab P6]
6 R. v. White, 2006 ABCA 65, 380 A.R. 188; (JRA Tab CJ
7 Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, as amended; [Sun Statutes Tab HI 4
13. Following White's remand into custody, but some months prior to his jury trial taking place, the media Appellants filed Notices of Motion in the Court of Queen's Bench, returnable before Mr. Justice Brooker, challenging the constitutionality of the mandatory ban on publication in s. 517. Affidavit evidence was filed by both 8 9 the media Applicants and White .
14. One of the Affidavits filed on behalf of the media was in the nature of expert or opinion evidence from Dr. Freedman, a university professor who had conducted some stUdies on the effect of pre-trial publicity on juries. Dr. Freedman was cross-examined by counsel on behalf of the Respondent White and the Crown. 1D
15. Argument on the constitutionality of the section took place before Brooker, J. six weeks before White's jury trial was due to commence. After one and a half days of argument, Brooker, J. reserved. The argument and submissions are reproduced in the Respondents' Joint Record at pp. 50-110. Counsel for the media Appellants, very fairly, did not press the issue.
16. White was then tried before Madam Justice Moreau, sitting with a jury, following a Challenge for Cause arising from pre-trial publicity. White was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced. 11 His appeal from conviction was later
dismissed by the Alberta Court of Appeal. 12
8 Affidavit of Jonathan L. Freedman; IJRA Tab XI
9 Affidavit of Mary MacDonald; [JRA Tab WI
10 Cross-examination of Dr. Jonathan Freedman on his Affidavit; IJRA Tab VI
II R. v. White, [2006} A.J No. 1655,2006 ABQB 909, 408 A.R. 64; [Respondent White Authorities ("White") Tab 7]
12 R. v. White, 2009 ABCA 115,448 A.R. 305; ICBC Authorities ("CBC") Tab 271 5
17. Several months after White's trial concluded, on May 31, 2007, Brooker, J. released his decision respecting s. 517.13 Brooker, J. struck the mandatory ban in s. 517 immediately for those cases in which a jury trial was not possible. 14 Brooker, J. held that the mandatory ban was over broad even where a jury trial was possible, but that its complete removal " ... would amplify the inequities that already exist within the adversarial system".15 He called upon Parliament to draft legislation to find some "middle ground" and suspended his declaration of invalidity for one year for that purpose. 16
18. That suspension was extended by the Alberta Court of Appeal on consent of all parties to the date on which its decision was released. 17 There does not appear to have been any attempts by Parliament or the Minister of Justice to amend this provision since.
19. The Crown was granted leave to appeal the decision of Brooker, J. to a full panel of the Alberta Court of Appeal, who reserved. Their decision was released in September of 2008. 18
20. The Alberta Court of Appeal unanimously overturned Brooker, J., finding that the mandatory ban was saved by s.1. The Court held that Brooker, J. was incorrect
13 R. v. White, 2007 ABQB 359, 420 A.R. 1; [JRA Tab D]
14 Ibid. at para. 131
15 Ibid at para. 128
16 Ibid at para. 129
17 Consent Order; [JRA Tab HI
18 Supra note 2 6
in striking it immediately where jury trials are not possible, as White was to be tried by jury and that question was therefore not properly before him.19
PART II - QUESTIONS IN ISSUE
21. The Chief Justice stated the constitutional questions as follows: 2o
1. Does s. 517 of the criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, as amended, infringe s. 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms21?
2. If so, is the infringement a reasonable limit prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society under s. 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
22. Other issues include the proper procedure for third party challenges to legislation, such as the media's challenge to s. 517 in the case at bar, and the corresponding routes of appeal.
PART 111- STATEMENT OF ARGUMENT
A. Jurisdiction
23. The Respondent White conceded jurisdiction and mootness before Brooker, J. and maintained that position in the Court of Appeal.
24. The Respondent takes no position on the issues of jurisdiction and the avenues of appeal for third parties in this Court.
19 Ibid. at para. 16
20 Constitutional Questions; IJRA Tab KI
21 Charter; ISun Statutes Tab BI 7
25. The constitutionality of section 517, as it currently reads, is clearly of national importance and the difficulties with the legislation in this area have been the subject of critical judicial comment in the past. However, the Respondent White does not join in the criticism expressed by the Alberta Court of Appeal towards the media Appellants and the court below.
26. Does s. 517 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 as amended, infringe s. 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
27. Section 517 clearly infringes s. 2(b), as has been conceded throughout. The Respondent White acknowledges the fundamental importance of freedom of expression, the open court principle and the freedom of the press as pillars of our democracy.
28. If so, is the infringement a reasonable limit prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society under s. 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
B. Pressing and Substantial Objective
29. The pressing and substantial objectives of s. 517 are to preserve the accused's rights to be presumed innocent, to be tried fairly before an impartial jury and to reasonable bail. The latter must include a right to an expeditious bail hearing. The accused cannot fairly be asked to sacrifice one fundamental right in order to protect another.
30. The importance of these objectives should not be understated. As held in Re: 22 Global Communications Ltd. and Attorney-General for Canada , the right to a fair trial is fragile. Extensive media publicity, as was acknowledged by the media Appellant's expert, Dr. Freedman, does impact negatively on an accused's
22 (1984),44 O.R. (2d) 609 (C.A.); [ESA Tab 32) 8
presumption of innocence. Its impact on the fairness of the trial before a jury depends on the nature of the alleged evidence disclosed, and its relationship to the evidence that is permitted to go before the trier of fact in trial. 23
31. This is not an academic debate. The media's right to free expression and the importance of ensuring that the public understand the principles and process of bail proceedings are acknowledged to be important objectives as well. But the practical realities governing bail proceedings must be acknowledged:
(a) Bail hearings usually take place very early in the criminal proceedings, before any of the evidence has been tested and often before it is disclosed. The parties know the least about the case at this stage of the proceeding.
(b) The character of the accused, the alleged confession, the incriminating result of a search, and any outstanding charges against the accused are inevitably going to form a substantial part of any bail hearing where such evidence is alleged to exist. Any or all of this may be inadmissible at trial and would therefore be grossly prejudicial if it were to be known by the jury.
(c) The accused's need to have his release pending trial determined quickly is pressing - the prospects for loss of employment, residence, income, programming and community support increase with every day he is in custody. These also compromise his ability to defend himself against the allegations.
(d) The modern reality of the Internet, and the increasing number of "blogs", means that initial publicity at the time of bail remains instantly accessible
23 Supra note 8 9
to anyone with Internet access at the time of trial. The result is that it can no longer be argued that the time gap between the bail hearing and the trial has any real impact on exposure to unfair publicity.
(e) While most criminal trials do not end up taking place before a jury, this is almost never known or determined by the time of the bail hearing. Even if an election has been made to be tried without a jury, the accused has a right to re-elect, and may well do so as a result of new disclosure or a better understanding of the case.
(f) It is not unusual for either the accused or the Crown, or both, to be unrepresented by counsel at the bail hearing;
(g) The accused is least able to answer the allegations and discuss his defence at the bail hearing in most cases. The onset of a criminal charge is usually sudden and life changing.
32. Examination of the evidence of Dr. Freedman, the expert called by the media Appellants, supported the following findings:
(a) In any criminal trial, the jury pool tends to believe the accused is guilty at the outset as a result of the charges alone.
(b) Where there has been significant pre-trial publicity, most of which will come from the police regardless of any pre-trial publication ban, the tendency to believe the accused is guilty is greater.
(c) Despite these tendencies, juries can, and do, base their verdicts on the instructions they receive and the evidence called, so that trials fairly run result in just verdicts on the evidence despite the pre-conceived beliefs of the jury. 10
(d) There are exceptions, such as where there has been publicity given to information which seems to indicate guilt in a powerful way but which is never called before the jury, either because of the law of evidence or the specific rulings in the individual trial.
(e) Determining when those exceptions might occur requires a case by case analysis in light of the actual evidence at trial and the defence that is called. 24
33. The Respondent White accepts these facts.
34. Dr. Freedman also testified that the recent phenomenon of the "blog", a form of publication which is specifically intended to sway public opinion, would be worrying if he believed that pre-trial publicity affected verdicts. 25 For the accused who has every reason to fear that effect, this is putting the cart before the horse. It is because pre-trial publicity can, in some cases, unfairly affect verdicts that the new challenges presented by the Internet must be acknowledged.
35. Parliamentary and judicial acknowledgement of these challenges to the fair trial process are reflected in other sections of the Code and case law, for example:
(a) Section 539 of the Criminal Code which provides for a similar ban respecting the evidence called at a preliminary inquiry26 and upheld in R. 27 v. 8anvil/e ;
24 Supra note 8
25 Supra note 10 at pp. 42 - 44
26 Criminal Code; [White Statutes Tab C]
27 [1983] N.B.J. No 110,45 N.B.R. (2d) 134 (N.B. Q.B.); [Respondent White's Authorities ("White Authorities") Tab 1 ) 11
(b) Section 542 of the Criminal Code respecting a ban on publication of any confession or admission by the accused tendered at the preliminary inquiry prior to conclusion of the proceedings28 ;
(c) Section 648 of the Criminal Code which prohibits publication of any portion of a jury trial which takes place in the absence of the jury before the jury retires to consider its verdict (at which time the jury is sequestered)29;
(d) The jurisprudence which supports the rule of ethical practice that a Crown Prosecutor may not refer to damning evidence in his or her opening address to the jury which is subject to a challenge to its admissibility - the result is often a mistrial.
32 3 See R. v. Proctor;30 R. v. Taylor;1 R. v. D.A.H. ; R. v. Grenkovr
36. The media Appellants argue that jurors can be expected to follow instructions and point to the existence of applications for a Challenge for Cause, Change of Venue and Sequestration as available alternatives where the risk of prejudice is great. The first two offer very limited protection to the accused in the modern world, at least where pre-trial publicity has been extensive and incriminating evidence was relied upon at the bail hearing which is not admissible at trial. The last alternative, sequestration for the duration of the trial, is very harsh to jurors.
28 Criminal Code; [White Statutes Tab D)
29 Criminal Code; [White Statutes Tab I)
30 [1992] M.J. No. 32, 75 Man. R. (2d) 217, [1992] 2 W.W.R 289 at paras. 46-63 (C.A.); [White Authorities Tab 5)
31 [1979] N.S.J. No. 517, 31 N.S.R. (2d) 87 at para. 11 (N.S.S.C. App. Div.); [White Authorities Tab 6)
32 R. v. D.A.H., [2002] B.C.J. No. 2538,2000 BCCA 688, 48 W.C.B. (2d) 313 at paras. 8-10 and 15-16; [White Authorities Tab 3)
33 [1994] N.S.J. No. 577, 136 N.S.R. (2d) 264; [White Authorities Tab 4) 12
37. With respect to non-jury trials, the Alberta Court of Appeal expressed the almost heretical proposition that it may be desirable to insulate trial judges from pre-trial 34 publicity as we1l • From the accused's perspective, and for the appearance of fairness, the reality is that this is most desirable. Efforts toward the same goal are now made by all courts, through the practices that ensure that the judge who hears the bail application does not also hear the trial, nor does the pre-trial hearing judge.
38. These practices are not inconsistent with acknowledging that trial judges must, and do, hear evidence that they rule inadmissible and therefore must not consider in judge alone trials. The reality is that there is no way to avoid this happening, and it cannot be inconsistent with a fair trial.
39. However, avoiding having the same judge hear both the bail hearing and the trial is possible and desirable, and so it occurs. Additionally, the trial judge who makes an exclusionary evidential ruling is making that ruling in the context of the evidence called in that proceeding. A bail hearing may, and often does, involve entirely different evidence or information than is admitted at trial.
40. Therefore, from the accused's perspective, it is anything but self-evident that it does not matter if his bad character is publicized prior to his judge alone trial. However, given the importance of rights infringed by the ban, it is conceded by the Respondent White that when it comes to judge alone trials, the balance favours the freedom of the press. Therefore, the mandatory ban in section 517 should be restricted to those cases where a jury trial is possible.
34 Supra note 2 at para. 39 13 C. Rational Connection
41. The rational connection between the ban and the objective is clear. The trier of fact should not, to the extent possible in our criminal justice system, be told of inadmissible evidence to the prejudice of the accused. The Crown must not seek to adduce (or mention) clearly inadmissible evidence in any criminal trial, whether before judge or jury, because it may result in an unfair trial. The appearance of unfairness from such action would be incontrovertible.
42. Exposure to such information through pre-trial publicity of the bail hearing does not occur through deliberate state conduct, but the effect is the same. The Crown is perfectly entitled to adduce evidence of bad character at the bail hearing, even unproven allegations of bad character, but is almost never allowed to do so at trial. Ensuring that the jury is not exposed to this information by way of a ban is a direct and rational remedy to prevent the unfairness.
43. For the reasons stated above, it is submitted that the blanket ban for all charges is rationally connected to the pressing objective. However, its application to non jury trials likely does fail the third and fourth tests below.
44. It should be acknowledged that although there are many instances of when a jury trial is "not likely", there are substantially fewer instances of when a jury trial is "not possible".
45. Part XXIV of the Criminal Code (ss. 785 - 840) deals with Summary Conviction Offences. All summary conviction offences fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Provincial Court. Neither the Crown nor the accused has an election as to the mode of trial. There is no possibility of a jury trial with summary conviction offences.
46. It would appear at first blush that the indictable offences contained in Part XIX of the Criminal Code can also only be tried by a provincial court judge. Section 553 14
contains a list of offences that fall under the "absolute jurisdiction" of a provincial court judge (for example theft under $5000).35 However, "absolute" does not equal "exclusive".36 Pursuant to s. 555, it is possible that if:
it appears to the provincial court judge that for any reason the charge should be prosecuted by indictment, he may, at any time before the accused has entered upon his defence, decide not to adjudicate and shall thereupon inform the accused of his decision and continue the proceedings as a preliminary inquiry.37
47. Therefore it is possible, although very unlikely, to receive a jury trial for all those offences listed in s. 553. It is suggested that it is accurate to say that for absolute jurisdiction offences, a jury trial is not reasonably possible.
48. There are many "dual procedure" or "hybrid" offences contained in the Criminal Code that are not in the absolute jurisdiction of the provincial court. These are sometimes referred to as "indictable election offences" and are described in s. 536 of the Criminal Code.38 If the Crown proceeds by indictment, then the accused could elect to be tried by a judge and jury. It should be noted that until an election is made by the Crown, the offence is deemed to be an indictable offence. Since the Crown has often not determined how they will proceed at the time of the bail hearing, it is entirely possible at that stage that any of these offences may be tried by a jury. Even where the Crown has elected, and the accused has entered an election to be tried by provincial court judge or a judge without a jury, s 561 allows an accused to re-elect and choose a court composed of a judge and jury at any time with the Crown's consent and may re-elect without
35 Criminal Code; (White Statutes Tab E]
36 R. v. Coupland, [1978] A.J. No. 940 14 A.R. a (Alta. c.A.); [White Authorities Tab 2]
37 Criminal Code; (White Statutes Tab FJ
38 Criminal Code; [White Statutes Tab B] 15
the Crown's consent if certain time lines are followed. 39 For all of these charges, therefore, a jury trial is reasonably possible until quite late in the proceedings, usually long after a bail hearing.
49. Finally, it is not always possible for an accused to avoid a jury trial (so as to avoid any prejudice from the pre-trial publicity from the inadmissible evidence at his bail hearing). Section 568 provides that where an offence is punishable by more than 5 years imprisonment upon conviction, it is possible for the Attorney General to require a trial by jury.40 For s. 469 offences, such as murder, the Attorney General must consent to trial by judge alone (as must the accused), or the trial will necessarily be before a judge and jury.41
50. So while there are relatively few jury trials in reality, at the time that a bail hearing is held, it is at least theoretically possible that a significant number of those cases could be heard by a judge and jury.
51. With respect to the coverage aspect of the blanket ban, it must be total or it will necessarily be ineffective in at least some cases. It does mean that information favourable to the accused is not reported (although the accused does not have to seek the ban), and it does mean that the public is not aware of the reasons for the bail decision at the time of the hearing, which does not assist public understanding of the law.
52. However, because of the undeniable reality of the bail hearings as discussed above, this cannot be avoided by an "edited" version of the hearing. The parties' relative ignorance of the case, the very early stage in the proceedings at which
39 Criminal Code; [White Statutes Tab GI
40 Criminal Code; [White Statutes Tab HI
41 Crimina! Code; [White Statutes Tab AI 16
most bail hearings take place, the inability to make critical decisions regarding mode of trial at that time, and urgency, means that any effort to "edit" for public consumption will be uninformed. It would also lead to distortion, and public education is better delayed than deliberately distorted by the courts.
D. Minimal Impairment
53. It is submitted that the hard questions here are whether the section meets this, the third, as well as the fourth tests as set out in R. v. Oakes.42 Both tests involve a core analysis of proportionality.
54. There is no question that a mandatory, blanket ban is broad. However, that does not necessarily mean that it impairs the media's rights more than is "reasonably necessary". First, one must consider the alternatives.
55. The obvious alternative, a discretionary ban, would clearly be more proportional and less broad. The difficulty, however, is the need for fair notice to the media, as required by Dagenais,43 in the face of the accused's need to have his bail hearing heard quickly, usually within twenty-four hours of arrest. In the vast majority of bail hearings, the media will have no interest but there is always a very real risk that bad character or other arguably inadmissible evidence will be tendered at a bail hearing. The right to apply for a discretionary ban leaves the accused in a very unfair position - to sit in custody for what may be several additional days so as to give notice to the media counsel of something they are very unlikely to desire notice of, or to voluntarily risk prejudice to his right to a fair trial on admissible evidence. This is a Hobson's Choice of the worst kind. It could negatively impact on the decision to bring a bail application, and ultimately on the accused's election as to mode of trial.
42 [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; [ESA Tab 28]
43 Dagenais v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835; [ESA Tab 7] 17
56. It is suggested by Justice Rosenberg that notice will often not be required by the justice hearing the case. Respectfully, it is difficult to know the basis on which the justice would decide that notice was not required. A temporary ban without notice, with a requirement of notice afterward, leaves the accused in an equally uncertain and risky position should he proceed, as there is no way of knowing whether the information will be published later, and closer to his trial.44
57. A discretionary ban also requires an informed argument on the merits. Again, given the time element, the lack of information, the lack of representation and the urgency, this is not a requirement that the accused can reasonably be expected to meet in the vast majority of bail hearings, or even a week or two after the bail hearing. For most accused, retaining a lawyer and ensuring that the lawyer has the relevant information to begin mounting his defence takes weeks, if not months, in many cases.
58. Therefore, the minimal impairment test is met, at least where a jury trial is reasonably possible, because the blanket ban is reasonably necessary to accomplish the objective. None of the narrower alternatives provide an effective remedy to prevent the unfairness or allow for an informed balancing of the competing rights.
E. Salutary vs. Deleterious Effects
59. This analysis is the most difficult part of this case. The Ontario Court of Appeal in Toronto Star split largely on this issue, and Rosenberg J.A., for the minority, acknowledged that "it is hardly an exact science". 45 The reality is that reasonable people can disagree on this question.
44 Supra note 4 at para. 63
45 Ibid. at para. 108 18
60. It is the position of the Respondent White that the analysis of the majority of the Ontario Court of Appeal, who also had the benefit of the unanimous decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal in the present case, should be adopted on this question.46
61. Listing the two categories of effects can easily become an exercise in numerical expression. It is not the skill of the list-maker which should govern, but a fair comparison of the values at stake and the relative impact of the necessary infringement on those persons affected by the choice made by the law.
62. The truth is that the blanket ban is not necessary for the vast majority of accused. But it is almost impossible to know who will or will not be in that group at the time of the bail hearing. For those whose fair trial interests make it a compelling concern, their ability to recognize that fact, and prove it, could not be any lower than at their bail hearing.
63. It is also true that the actual effect of the blanket ban on the media's freedom to report is very small, as they do not seek to report on the bail hearings of the vast majority of accused.
64. The small number where these interests intersect and collide are those cases in which the very risks discussed by Dr. Freedman are most likely to exist: a high profile case or accused; intense pre-trial publicity; very serious consequences of conviction; a jury very likely or mandatory; and sharply contested evidence.
65. For these cases, the media are required to delay the reporting of the content of the bail hearing, whatever it's result. The right to be tried by a jury on the admissible evidence only is simply too important to the accused, the Crown, the complainants, the families of the parties, and the public generally to permit broad,
46 Ibid at paras. 236-247 19
lasting dissemination of the prejudicial evidence. If this is permitted, then it renders the similarly intended protections in sections 539, 648 and the common law completely ineffective.
66. Editing out the non-prejudicial information for publication would often be worse than delay. The accused's record of non-compliance or dangerous behaviour may provide very sound reasons for a judge to deny the accused's bail. If those reasons are not included in the media reports, it will appear that it was the charge itself that resulted in detention. This does not aid public understanding of the importance of the presumption of innocence but undermines it.
F. Remedy
67. The position of the Respondent White is that the section could be read down to apply only where a jury trial is reasonably possible, which would exclude deemed summary conviction and absolute jurisdiction offences.
68. If this Court finds that this is insufficient to save the remainder of the section, it is suggested that there are far better alternatives than Simply rendering it a discretionary ban on application by the accused:
(i) the Court could read into the section a proviso so as to allow the media to challenge the ban on notice - the bail justice therefore will issue the ban on application by the accused without notice and conduct the bail hearing, with the media being given the right to seek to set aside that order later, on notice;
(ii) the Court could read into the section that the ban be mandatory, but time limited, and in the absence of an application to extend the ban by the accused, the ban would expire; 20
(iii) the Court could read down the section so as to exclude from the mandatory ban only the reasons for the decision on bail, thus ensuring that the bail justice, and the parties, could carefully consider the balance between the competing rights at issue and ensure that the reasons were neither misleading or prejudicial;
69. None of these alternatives create a complex drafting problem or put the media in an unfair position. They do put the accused's fair trial right at some risk, but ensures an expeditious bail hearing and some time to respond should the media have an interest. They also restrict the need for the resources required to meet the media's challenge to those accused for whom it is actually in issue.
See Schachter v. Canada47
70. In contrast, a discretionary ban leaves the accused in a completely disadvantaged position. Mr. Justice Brooker's own decision acknowledged this reality, but his call to Parliament fell on deaf ears, just as have the media and the Courts's requests for legislative clarification of the procedural rights of the third parties in criminal proceedings.
PART IV - SUBMISSIONS AS TO COSTS
71. The Respondent White submits that costs ought not be awarded.
PART V - ORDER SOUGHT
72. The Respondent White submits that the constitutional questions stated by the Court should be answered as follows:
(1) Does s. 517 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 as amended,
47 [1992] 2 S.C.R. 679,93 D.L.R. (4th) 1; (CDC Tab 29] 21 infringe s. 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
Yes.
(2) If so, is the infringement a reasonable limit prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society under s. 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
Yes, for those offences where a jury trial is reasonably possible.
ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITIED this r day of September, 2009.
DAWSON STEVENS DUCKETT & SHAIGEC
Per: ~~tU~}w Laura K. Stevens, a.c. Counsel for the Respondent White 22
PART VI- TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Paragraph
1. Dagenais v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835 55
2. R. v. Banville, [1983] N.B.J. No 110,45 N.B.R. (2d) 134 (N.B. O.B.) 35
3. R. v. Coupland, [1978] A.J. No. 940 14 AR. a (Alta. C.A.) 46
4. R. v. D.AH., [2002] B.C.J. No. 2538, 2000 BCCA 688,48 W.C.B. (2d) 313 35
5. R. v. Grenkow, [1994] N.S.J. No. 577,136 N.S.R. (2d) 264 35
6. R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103 53
7. R. v. Proctor, [1992] M.J. No. 32, 75 Man. R. (2d) 217, [1992] 2 W.W.R 289 35
8. R. v. Taylor, [1979] N.S.J. No. 517, 31 N.S.R. (2d) 87 35
9. R. v. White, (7 October 2005) 10
10. R. v. White, [2006J AJ. No. 1655,2006 ABQB 909,408 AR. 64 16
11. R. v. White, 2006 ABCA 65, 380 A R. 188 12
12. R. v. White, 2007 ABQB 359, 420 A.R. 1 17
13. R. v. White, 2008 ABCA 294,437 A.R. 130 6,19,20
14. R. v. White, 2009 ABCA 115, 448 AR. 305 16
15. Re: Global Communications Ltd. and Attorney-General for Canada (1984),44 O.R. (2d) 609 (C.A.) 30
16. Schachter v. Canada, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 679, 93 D.L.R. (4th) 1 69
17. Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd. v. Canada, 2009 CarsweliOnt 301, 7,56,59,60 2009 ONCA 59,94 O.R. (3d) 82 23
PART VII- STATUTORY PROVISIONS
Tab
A Criminal Code, RS.C. 1985, c. C-46, as amended, s. 469
B Criminal Code, RS.C. 1985, c. C-46, as amended, s. 536
C Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, as amended, s. 539
D Criminal Code, RS.C. 1985, c. C-46, as amended, s. 542
E Criminal Code, RS.C. 1985, c. C-46, as amended, s. 553
F Criminal Code, RS.C. 1985, c. C-46, as amended, s. 555
G Criminal Code, RS.C. 1985, c. C-46, as amended, s. 561
H Criminal Code, RS.C. 1985, c. C-46, as amended, s. 568
Criminal Code, RS.C. 1985, c. C-46, as amended, s. 648 24
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, as amended, s. 469
Court of criminal jurisdiction Cour de juridiction criminelle
469. Every court of criminal jurisdiction has 469. Toute cour de juridiction criminelle est jurisdiction to try an indictable offence competente pour juger un acte criminel other than autre:
(a) an offence under any of the following a) qu'une infraction visee par I'un des sections: articles suivants :
(i) section 47 (treason), (i) I'article 47 (trahison),
(ii) section 49 (alarming Her Majesty), (ii) I'article 49 (alarmer Sa Majeste),
(iii) section 51 (intimidating Parliament or a (iii) I'article 51 (intimider Ie Parlement ou legislature), une legislature),
(iv) section 53 (inciting to mutiny), (iv) I'article 53 (incitation a la mutinerie),
(v) section 61 (seditious offences), (v) I'article 61 (infractions seditieuses),
(vi) section 74 (piracy), (vi) I'article 74 (piraterie),
(vii) section 75 (piratical acts), or (vii) I'article 75 (actes de piraterie),
(viii) section 235 (murder); (viii) I'article 235 (meurtre);
Accessories(b) the offence of being an Compliciteb) que I'infraction d'etre accessory after the fact to high treason or complice apres Ie fait d'une haute trahison, treason or murder; d'une trahison ou d'un meurtre;
(c) an offence under section 119 (bribery) c) qu'une infraction aux termes de I'article by the holder of a judicial office; 119 (corruption) par Ie detenteur de fonctions judiciaires; Crimes against humanity(c.1) an offence under any of sections 4 to 7 of the Crimes Crimes contre l'humanitec.1) qu'une Against Humanity and War Crimes Act; infraction visee a I'un des articles 4 a 7 de la Loi sur les crimes contre I'humanite et Attempts(d) the offence of attempting to les crimes de guerre; commit any offence mentioned in 25 subparagraphs (a)(i) to (vii); or Tentativesd) que I'infraction de tentative de commettre une infraction mention nee Conspiracy(e) the offence of conspiring to aux sous-alineas a)(i) a (vii); commit any offence mentioned in paragraph (a). Complote) que I'infraction de comploter en vue de commettre une infraction mention nee a I'alinea a). 26
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, as amended, s. 536
Remand by justice to provincial court Renvoi par Ie juge de paix dans judge in certain cases certains cas
536. (1) Where an accused is before a 536. (1) Lorsqu'un prevenu est, devant un justice other than a provincial court judge juge de paix autre qu'un juge de la cour charged with an offence over which a provinciale, inculpe d'une infraction a provincial court judge has absolute I'egard de laquelle un juge de la cour jurisdiction under section 553, the justice provinciale possede une juridiction shall remand the accused to appear before absolue en vertu de I'article 553, Ie juge de a provincial court judge having jurisdiction paix renvoie Ie prevenu pour qu'il in the territorial division in which the comparaisse devant un juge de la cour offence is alleged to have been committed. provincia Ie ayant juridiction dans la circonscription territoriale ou I'infraction Election before justice in certain cases aurait ete commise.
(2) If an accused is before a justice Choix devant un juge de paix dans charged with an indictable offence, other certains cas than an offence listed in section 469, and the offence is not one over which a (2) Lorsqu'un prevenu est inculpe devant provincial court judge has absolute un juge de paix d'un acte criminel autre jurisdiction under section 553, the justice qu'une infraction mention nee a I'article 469 shall, after the information has been read et que I'infraction n'en est pas une a to the accused, put the accused to an I'egard de laquelle un juge de la cour election in the following words: provinciale a competence absolue en vertu de I'article 553, Ie juge de paix, apres que You have the option to elect to be tried by la denonciation a ete lue au prevenu, a provincial court judge without a jury and I'appelle a faire son choix dans les termes without having had a preliminary inquiry; or suivants: you may elect to be tried by a judge without a jury; or you may elect to be tried Vous avez Ie choix d'etre juge par un juge by a court composed of a judge and jury. If de la cour provinciale sans jury et sans you do not elect now, you are deemed to enquete preliminaire; ou vous pouvez have elected to be tried by a court choisir d'etre juge par un juge sans jury; composed of a judge and jury. If you elect ou encore vous pouvez choisir d'etre juge to be tried by a judge without a jury or by a par un tribunal compose d'un juge et d'un court composed of a judge and jury or if jury. Si vous ne faites pas ce choix you are deemed to have elected to be tried maintenant, vous etes repute avoir choisi by a court composed of a judge and jury, d'etre juge par un tribunal compose d'un you will have a preliminary inquiry only if juge et d'un jury. Si vous choisissez d'etre you or the prosecutor requests one. How juge par un juge sans jury ou par un 27 do you elect to be tried? tribunal compose d'un juge et d'un jury ou etes repute avoir choisi d'etre juge par un Procedure where accused elects trial by tribunal compose d'un juge et d'un jury, provincial court judge une enquete preliminaire ne sera tenue que si vous ou Ie poursuivant en faites la (3) Where an accused elects to be tried by demande. Comment choisissez-vous a provincial court judge, the justice shall d'etre juge? endorse on the information a record of the election and shall Procedure lorsque Ie prevenu opte pour un proces devant un juge de la cour (a) where the justice is not a provincial provinciale court judge, remand the accused to appear and plead to the charge before a (3) Lorsqu'un prevenu choisit d'etre juge provincial court judge having jurisdiction in par un juge de la cour provinciale, Ie juge the territorial division in which the offence de paix inscrit sur la denonciation une is alleged to have been committed; or mention du choix et :
(b) where the justice is a provincial court a) si Ie juge de paix n'est pas un juge de la judge, call on the accused to plead to the cour provinciale, renvoie Ie prevenu, pour charge and if the accused does not plead comparution et plaidoyer relativement a guilty, proceed with the trial or fix a time for I'inculpation, devant un juge de la cour the trial. provinciale ayant juridiction dans la circonscription territoriale ou I'infraction est Request for preliminary inquiry presumee avoir ete commise;
(4) If an accused elects to be tried by a b) si Ie juge de paix est un juge de la cour judge without a jury or by a court provinciale, requiert Ie prevenu de composed of a judge and jury or does not repondre a I'inculpation et, si ce dernier elect when put to the election or is deemed nie sa culpabilite, procede au proces ou under paragraph 565(1)(b) to have elected fixe une date pour Ie proces. to be tried by a court composed of a judge and jury or is charged with an offence Demande d'enquete preliminaire listed in section 469, the justice shall, subject to section 577, on the request of (4) Lorsqu'un prevenu choisit d'etre juge the accused or the prosecutor made at par un juge sans jury ou par un tribunal that time or within the period fixed by rules compose d'un juge et d'un jury ou est of court made under section 482 or 482.1 repute, au titre de I'alinea 565(1)b), avoir or, if there are no such rules, by the choisi d'etre juge par un tribunal compose justice, hold a preliminary inquiry into the d'un juge et d'un jury ou est accuse d'une charge. infraction mention nee a I'article 469 ou encore ne fait pas de choix, Ie juge de paix Endorsement on the information tient, sous reserve de I'article 577, une enquete preliminaire sur I'inculpation, sur 28
(4.1) If an accused elects to be tried by a demande presentee par Ie prevenu ou Ie judge without a jury or by a court poursuivant a ce moment ou dans Ie delai composed of a judge and jury or does not prevu par les regles etablies en vertu des elect when put to the election or is deemed articles 482 ou 482.1, ou, en I'absence de under paragraph 565(1)(b) to have elected rt3gles, dans Ie delai fixe par lui. to be tried by a court composed of a judge and jury or is charged with an offence Inscription sur la denonciation listed in section 469, the justice shall endorse on the information and, if the (4.1) Lorsque Ie prevenu choisit d'etre juge accused is in custody, on the warrant of par un juge sans jury ou par un tribunal remand, a statement showing compose d'un juge et d'un jury ou est repute, au titre de I'alinea 565(1)b), avoir (a) the nature of the election or deemed choisi d'etre juge par un tribunal compose election of the accused or that the accused d'un juge et d'un jury ou est accuse d'une did not elect, as the case may be; and infraction mention nee a I'article 469 ou encore ne fait pas de choix, Ie juge de paix (b) whether the accused or the prosecutor inscrit sur la denonciation et, si Ie prevenu has requested that a preliminary inquiry be est detenu sous garde, sur Ie mandat de held. renvoi:
Preliminary inquiry if two or more accused a) une mention de la nature du choix du prevenu - reel ou repute - ou du fait (4.2) If two or more persons are jointly qu'iI n'a pas fait de choix, selon Ie cas; charged in an information and one or more of them make a request for a preliminary b) une mention, Ie cas echeant, du fait que inquiry under subsection (4), a preliminary Ie prevenu ou Ie poursuivant a demande la inquiry must be held with respect to all of tenue d'une enquete preliminaire. them. Plusieurs inculpes When no request for preliminary inquiry (4.2) Lorsque deux ou plusieurs personnes (4.3) If no request for a preliminary inquiry font I'objet d'inculpations enoncees dans la is made under subsection (4), the justice meme denonciation et que I'une d'elles shall fix the date for the trial or the date on demande la tenue d'une enquete which the accused must appear in the trial preliminaire au titre du paragraphe (4), une court to have the date fixed. meme enquete est tenue a I'egard de toutes ces personnes. Jurisdiction Enquete preliminaire non demandee (5) Where a justice before whom a preliminary inquiry is being or is to be held (4.3) Si la tenue d'une enquete has not commenced to take evidence, any preliminaire n'est pas demandee au titre justice having jurisdiction in the province du paragraphe (4), Ie juge depaix fixe soit 29 where the offence with which the accused la date du proces, soit la date a laquelle Ie is charged is alleged to have been prevenu devra comparaitre pour connaitre committed has jurisdiction for the purposes cette date. of subsection (4). Competence
(5) Lorsqu'un juge de paix devant qui se tient ou doit se tenir une enquete preliminaire n'a pas commence a recueillir la preuve, tout juge de paix ayant juridiction dans la province ou I'infraction dont Ie prevenu est inculpe est presumee avoir ete commise est competent aux fins du paragraphe (4). 30
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, as amended, s. 539
Order restricting publication of Ordonnances restreignant la evidence taken at preliminary inquiry publication de la preuve recueillie lors d'une enquete preliminaire 539. (1) Prior to the commencement of the taking of evidence at a preliminary inquiry, 539. (1) Avant qu'il ne commence a the justice holding the inquiry recueillir la preuve lors d'une enquete preliminaire, Ie juge de paix qui preside (a) may, if application therefor is made by I'enquete peut, a la demande du the prosecutor, and poursuivant ou doit, a la demande d'un prevenu, rendre une ordonnance portant (b) shall, if application therefor is made by que la preuve recueillie lors de I'enquete any of the accused, ne peut etre publiee ou diffusee de quelque fayon que ce soit avant que make an order directing that the evidence chacun des prevenus ne soit libere ou, s'il taken at the inquiry shall not be published y a renvoi aux fins de proces, avant que Ie in any document or broadcast or proces de chacun d'eux n'ait pris fin. transmitted in any way before such time as, in respect of each of the accused, Le prevenu doit etre averti qu'il a Ie droit de faire une demande d'ordonnance (c) he or she is discharged, or (2) Lorsqu'un prevenu n'est pas (d) if he or she is ordered to stand trial, the represente par avocat lors de I'enquete trial is ended. preliminaire, Ie juge de paix qui tient I'enquete doit, avant qu'iI ne commence a Accused to be informed of right to apply recueillir la preuve a I'enquete, faire part a for order I'accuse de son droit de faire une demande en vertu du paragraphe (1). (2) Where an accused is not represented by counsel at a preliminary inquiry, the Oefaut de se conformer a I'ordonnance justice holding the inquiry shall, prior to the commencement of the taking of evidence (3) Est coupable d'une infraction at the inquiry, inform the accused of his punissable sur declaration de culpabilite right to make application under subsection par procedure sommaire quiconque fait (1 ). defaut de se conformer a une ordonnance rendue en conformite avec Ie paragraphe Failure to comply with order (1 ).
(3) Every one who fails to comply with an (4) [Abroge, 2005, ch. 32, art. 18] order made pursuant to subsection (1) is guilty of an offence punishable on 31 summary conviction.
(4) rRepealed, 2005, c. 32, s. 18] 32
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, as amended, s. 542
Confession or admission of accused Aveu ou confession de I'accuse
542. (1) Nothing in this Act prevents a 542. (1) La presente loi n'a pas pour effet prosecutor giving in evidence at a d'empecher un poursuivant de fournir en preliminary inquiry any admission, preuve, a une enquete preliminaire, tout confession or statement made at any time aveu, confession ou declaration fait a by the accused that by law is admissible quelque moment que ce soit par Ie against him. prevenu et qui, d'apres la loi, est admissible contre lui. Restriction of publication of reports of preliminary inquiry Restriction visant la publication de rapports sur I'enquete preliminaire (2) Every one who publishes in any document, or broadcasts or transmits in (2) Est coupable d'une infraction any way, a report that any admission or punissable sur declaration de culpabilite confession was tendered in evidence at a par procedure sommaire quiconque publie preliminary inquiry or a report of the nature ou diffuse de quelque faC(on que ce soit un of such admission or confession so rapport portant qu'un aveu ou une tendered in evidence unless confession a ete presente en preuve a une enquete preliminaire, ou un rapport (a) the accused has been discharged, or indiquant la nature de tout semblable aveu ou confession ainsi presente en preuve, (b) if the accused has been ordered to sauf si I'accuse a ete libere ou, dans Ie cas stand trial, the trial has ended, ou I'accuse a ete renvoye pour subir son proces, si Ie proces a pris fin. is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction. (3) [Abroge, 2005, ch. 32, art. 19]
(3) [Repealed, 2005, c. 32, s. 19] 33
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, as amended, s. 553
Absolute jurisdiction Juridiction absolue
553. The jurisdiction of a provincial court 553. La competence d'un juge de la cour judge, or in Nunavut, of ajudge of the provinciale et, au Nunavut, de la Cour de Nunavut Court of Justice, to try an justice, pour juger un prevenu est absolue accused is absolute and does not depend et ne depend pas du consentement du on the consent of the accused where the prevenu, lorsque celui-ci est inculpe, dans accused is charged in an information une denonciation :
(a) with a) soit d'avoir, selon Ie cas:
(i) theft, other than theft of cattle, (i) commis un vol, autre qu'un vol de betail,
(ii) obtaining money or property by false (ii) obtenu de I'argent ou des biens par de pretences, faux-semblants,
(iii) unlawfully having in his possession any (iii) illegalement en sa possession un bien, property or thing or any proceeds of any une chose ou leur produit sachant que tout property or thing knowing that all or a part ou partie d'entre eux ont ete obtenus of the property or thing or of the proceeds directement ou indirectement par la was obtained by or derived directly or perpetration au Canada d'une infraction indirectly from the commission in Canada punissable sur acte d'accusation ou of an offence punishable by indictment or obtenus par une omission ou un acte an act or omission anywhere that, if it had survenus n'importe ou qui, au Canada, occurred in Canada, would have auraient ete punissables sur acte constituted an offence punishable by d'accusation, indictment, (iv) par supercherie, mensonge et autre (iv) having, by deceit, falsehood or other moyen dolosif, frustre Ie public ou toute fraudulent means, defrauded the public or personne, determinee ou non, de tout any person, whether ascertained or not, of bien, argent ou valeur, any property, money or valuable security, or (v) commis un mefait au sens du paragraphe 430(4), (v) mischief under subsection 430(4), lorsque I'objet de I'infraction n'est pas un where the subject-matter of the offence is titre testamentaire et que sa valeur ne not a testamentary instrument and the depasse pas cinq mille dollars; alleged value of the subject-matter of the offence does not exceed five thousand 34 dollars; b) soit d'avoir conseille a quelqu'un de commettre une infraction, d'avoir tente de commettre une infraction, d'avoir complote (b) with counselling or with a conspiracy or en vue de commettre une infraction ou attempt to commit or with being an d'avoir ete complice apn3s Ie fait de la accessory after the fact to the commission perpetration d'une infraction, qu'il s'agisse of de I'une ou I'autre des infractions suivantes: (i) any offence referred to in paragraph (a) in respect of the subject-matter and value (i) une infraction visee a I'alinea a), sous thereof referred to in that paragraph, or reserve des limites quant a la nature et a la valeur de I'objet de I'infraction (ii) any offence referred to in paragraph mentionnees dans cet alinea, (c); or (ii) une infraction visee a I'alinea c); (c) with an offence under c) soit d'une infraction prevue par: (i) section 201 (keeping gaming or betting house), (i) I'article 201 (maison de jeu ou de pari),
(ii) section 202 (betting, pool-selling, book- (ii) I'article 202 (bookmaking), making, etc.), (iii) I'article 203 (gageure), (iii) section 203 (placing bets), (iv) I'article 206 (Ioteries, etc.), (iv) section 206 (lotteries and games of chance), (v) I'article 209 (tricher au jeu),
(v) section 209 (cheating at play), (vi) I'article 210 (maison de debauche),
(vi) section 210 (keeping common bawdy- (vii) [Abroge, 2000, ch. 25, art. 4] house), (viii) I'article 393 (fraude en matiere de prix (vii) [Repealed, 2000, c. 25, s. 4] de passage),
(viii) section 393 (fraud in relation to fares), (viii. 1) I'article 811 (manquement a I' engagement), (viii. 1) section 811 (breach of recognizance), (ix) Ie paragraphe 733.1 (1) (defaut de se conformer a une ordonnance de (ix) subsection 733.1 (1) (failure to comply probation), with probation order), (x) I'alinea 4(4)a) de la Loi reglementant 35
(x) paragraph 4(4)(a) of the Controlled certaines drogues et autres substances, Drugs and Substances Act, or (xi) Ie paragraphe 5(4) de la Loi (xi) subsection 5(4) of the Controlled reglementant certaines drogues et autres Drugs and Substances Act. substances. 36
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, as amended, s. 555
Provincial court judge may decide to Le juge de la cour provinciale peut hold preliminary inquiry decider de tenir une enquete preliminaire 555. (1) Where in any proceedings under this Part an accused is before a provincial 555. (1) Lorsque, dans toutes procedures court judge and it appears to the provincial prevues par la presente partie, un accuse court judge that for any reason the charge est devant un juge de la cour provinciale et should be prosecuted by indictment, he qu'il apparalt a celui-ci que, pour une may, at any time before the accused has raison quelconque, I'inculpation devrait entered on his defence, decide not to etre poursuivie sur acte d'accusation, Ie adjudicate and shall thereupon inform the juge de la cour provinciale peut, a tout accused of his decision and continue the moment avant que Ie prevenu ait proceedings as a preliminary inquiry. commence sa defense, decider de ne pas juger et doit, des lors, informer Ie prevenu Where subject-matter is a testamentary de sa decision et continuer les procedures instrument or exceeds $5,000 in value a titre d'enquete preliminaire.
(2) Where an accused is before a Acte testamentaire ou objet dont la valeur provincial court judge charged with an depasse 5 000 $ offence mentioned in paragraph 553(a) or subparagraph 553(b)(i), and, at any time (2) Si un prevenu est, devant un juge de la before the provincial court judge makes an cour provincia Ie, inculpe d'une infraction adjudication, the evidence establishes that mention nee a I'alinea 553a) ou au sous- the subject-matter of the offence is a alinea 553b)(i), et si, a tout moment avant testamentary instrument or that its value que Ie juge de la cour provinciale ne rende exceeds five thousand dollars, the une decision, la preuve etablit que I'objet provincial court judge shall put the de I'infraction est un acte testamentaire ou accused to his or her election in que sa valeur depasse cinq mille dollars, accordance with subsection 536(2). Ie juge de la cour provinciale appelle Ie prevenu a faire son choix en conformite Continuing proceedings avec Ie paragraphe 536(2).
(3) Where an accused is put to his election Continuation des procedures pursuant to subsection (2), the following provisions apply, namely, (3) Lorsqu'un prevenu est appele a faire son choix d'apres Ie paragraphe (2), les (a) if the accused elects to be tried by a dispositions suivantes s'appliquent : judge without a jury or a court composed of a judge and jury or does not elect when a) si Ie prevenu choisit d'etre juge par un put to his or her election, the provincial juge sans jury ou par un tribunal compose 37 court judge shall continue the proceedings d'un juge et d'un jury, ou ne fait pas de as a preliminary inquiry under Part XVIII choix, Ie juge de la cour provinciale and, if the provincial court judge orders the continue les procedures a titre d'enquete accused to stand trial, he or she shall preliminaire selon la partie XVIII et, s'il endorse on the information a record of the renvoie Ie prevenu pour subir son proces, election; and iI inscrit sur la denonciation une mention de la nature du choix; (b) if the accused elects to be tried by a provincial court judge, the provincial court b) si Ie prevenu choisit d'etre juge par un judge shall endorse on the information a juge de la cour provinciale, Ie juge de la record of the election and continue with cour provinciale inscrit sur la denonciation the trial. une mention du choix et continue Ie proces. 38
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, as amended, s. 561
Right to re-elect Droit a un nouveau choix
561. (1) An accused who elects or is 561. (1) Un prevenu qui a choisi ou qui est deemed to have elected a mode of trial repute avoir choisi d'etre juge autrement other than trial by a provincial court judge que par un juge de la cour provinciale peut may re-elect choisir:
(a) at any time before or after the a) a tout moment avant ou apres la fin de completion of the preliminary inquiry, with son enquete preliminaire avec Ie the written consent of the prosecutor, to be consentement ecrit du poursuivant, d'etre tried by a provincial court judge; juge par un juge de la cour provinciale;
(b) at any time before the completion of b) a tout moment avant la fin de son the preliminary inquiry or before the enquete preliminaire ou avant Ie fifteenth day following the completion of quinzieme jour suivant celle-ci, de droit, un the preliminary inquiry, as of right, another autre mode de proces qui n'est pas un mode of trial other than trial by a provincial proces devant un juge de la cour court judge; and provincia Ie;
(c) on or after the fifteenth day following c) a partir du quinzieme jour qui suit la the completion of the preliminary inquiry, conclusion de son enquete preliminaire, any mode of trial with the written consent tout mode de proces avec Ie of the prosecutor. consentement ecrit du poursuivant.
Right to re-elect Droit a un nouveau choix
(2) An accused who elects to be tried by a (2) Un prevenu qui a choisi d'etre juge par provincial court judge or who does not un juge de la cour provinciale ou n'a pas request a preliminary inquiry under demande la tenue d'une enquete subsection 536(4) may, not later than 14 preliminaire au titre du paragraphe 536(4) days before the day first appointed for the peut de droit, au plus tard quatorze jours trial, re-elect as of right another mode of avant la date fixee pour son proces, choisir trial, and may do so after that time with the un autre mode de proces; il ne peut par la written consent of the prosecutor. suite Ie faire qu'avec Ie consentement ecrit du poursuivant. Notice Avis (3) Where an accused wishes to re-elect under subsection (1) before the completion (3) Lorsqu'un prevenu desire faire un of the preliminary inquiry, the accused nouveau choix en vertu du paragraphe (1) 39 shall give notice in writing that he wishes avant que son enquete preliminaire ne soit to re-elect, together with the written terminee, il doit donner un avis ecrit de consent of the prosecutor, where that son intention de faire un nouveau choix consent is required, to the justice presiding accompagne du consentement ecrit du at the preliminary inquiry who shall on poursuivant, lorsqu'un tel consentement receipt of the notice, est requis, au juge de paix presidant I'enquete preliminaire qui, sur reception de (a) in the case of a re-election under cet avis, peut : paragraph (1)(b), put the accused to his re-election in the manner set out in a) dans Ie cas d'un nouveau choix fait en subsection (7); or vertu de I'alinea (1) b), appeler Ie prevenu a faire son nouveau choix de la maniere (b) where the accused wishes to re-elect prevue au paragraphe (7); under paragraph (1 )(a) and the justice is not a provincial court judge, notify a b) lorsque I'accuse desire faire un provincial court judge or clerk of the court nouveau choix en vertu de I'alinea (1) a) et of the accused's intention to re-elect and que Ie juge de paix n'est pas un juge de la send to the provincial court judge or clerk cour provinciale, aviser un juge de la cour the information and any promise to provinciale ou un greffier de ce tribunal de appear, undertaking or recognizance given I'intention de I'accuse de faire un nouveau or entered into in accordance with Part choix et faire parvenir au juge de la cour XVI, or any evidence taken before a provinciale ou au greffier concerne la coroner, that is in the possession of the denonciation, toute prom esse de justice. compara'itre, to ute promesse ou tout engagement que Ie prevenu a pu donner Idem ou contracter en vertu de la partie XVI, ou toute la preuve recueillie devant un (4) Where an accused wishes to re-elect coroner, qu'il a en sa possession. under subsection (2), the accused shall give notice in writing that he wishes to re Idem elect together with the written consent of the prosecutor, where that consent is (4) Lorsqu'un prevenu desire faire un required, to the provincial court judge nouveau choix en vertu du paragraphe (2), before whom the accused appeared and il doit donner un avis ecrit de son intention pleaded or to a clerk of the court. de ce faire accompagne du consentement ecrit du poursuivant, lorsqu'iI est requis, au Notice and transmitting record juge de la cour provinciale devant lequel il a comparu ou pia ide, ou au greffier de ce (5) Where an accused wishes to re-elect tribunal. under subsection (1) after the completion of the preliminary inquiry, the accused Avis et transmission des dossiers shall give notice in writing that he wishes to re-elect, together with the written (5) Lorsque Ie prevenu desire faire un 40 consent of the prosecutor, where that nouveau choix en vertu du paragraphe (1), consent is required, to a judge or clerk of une fois son enquete preliminaire the court of his original election who shall, terminee, il doit donner un avis ecrit de on receipt of the notice, notify the judge or son intention de ce faire accompagne du provincial court judge or clerk of the court consentement ecrit du poursuivant, by which the accused wishes to be tried of lorsque ce consentement est exige, a un the accused's intention to re-elect and juge ou greffier du tribunal de son premier send to that judge or provincial court judge choix, lequel doit alors aviser Ie juge ou Ie or clerk the information, the evidence, the juge de la cour provinciale ou Ie greffier du exhibits and the statement, if any, of the tribunal qui fait I'objet du nouveau choix du accused taken down in writing under prevenu et lui faire parvenir la section 541 and any promise to appear, denonciation, la preuve, les pieces, la undertaking or recognizance given or declaration s'iI en est, qu'a pu faire Ie entered into in accordance with Part XVI, prevenu, consignee par ecrit en vertu de or any evidence taken before a coroner, I'article 541, toute promesse de that is in the possession of the first comparaltre, toute promesse ou tout mentioned judge or clerk. engagement que Ie prevenu a pu donner ou conclure en vertu de la partie XVI, ou Time and place for re-election toute la preuve recueillie devant un coroner, qu'il a en sa possession. (6) Where a provincial court judge or judge or clerk of the court is notified under Date, heure et lieu du nouveau choix paragraph (3)(b) or subsection (4) or (5) that the accused wishes to re-elect, the (6) Lorsqu'un juge de la cour provinciale provincial court judge or judge shall ou un juge ou un greffier de ce tribunal est forthwith appoint a time and place for the avise en vertu de I'alinea (3) b) ou des accused to re-elect and shall cause notice paragraphes (4) ou (5) que Ie prevenu thereof to be given to the accused and the desire faire un nouveau choix, Ie juge de la prosecutor. cour provinciale ou Ie juge doit immediatement fixer les date, heure et lieu Proceedings on re-election ou Ie prevenu pourra faire son nouveau choix et doit faire en sorte qu'un avis soit (7) The accused shall attend or, if he is in donne au prevenu et au poursuivant. custody, shall be produced at the time and place appointed under subsection (6) and Procedures lorsque Ie choix est fait shall, after (7) Le prevenu se presente ou, s'il est (a) the charge on which he has been sous garde, est amene aux date, heure et ordered to stand trial or the indictment, lieu fixes en vertu du paragraphe (6) et, il where an indictment has been preferred doit, apres que lecture lui a ete faite : pursuant to section 566, 574 or 577 or is filed with the court before which the a) soit de I'inculpation sur laquelle il a ete indictment is to be preferred pursuant to renvoye pour subir son proces ou de I'acte 41 section 577, or d'accusation, s'il en est un, presente en vertu des articles 566, 574 ou 577, ou (b) in the case of a re-election under depose aupres du tribunal devant lequel subsection (1) before the completion of the I'acte d'accusation doit etre presente en preliminary inquiry or under subsection (2), vertu de I'article 577; the information b) soit, dans Ie cas d'un nouveau choix fait has been read to the accused, be put to en vertu du paragraphe (1) avant que son his re-election in the following words or in enquete preliminaire ne soit terminee, ou words to the like effect: dans Ie cas d'un nouveau choix fait en vertu du paragraphe (2), de la You have given notice of your wish to re denonciation, elect the mode of your trial. You now have the option to do so. How do you wish to re- etre appele a faire son nouveau choix elect? dans les termes suivants ou d'une teneur semblable:
Vous avez donne avis de votre intention de faire un nouveau choix. Vous avez maintenant cette possibilite. Comment choisissez-vous d'etre juge? 42
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, as amended, s. 568
Attorney General may require trial by Le procureur general peut exiger un jury proces par jury
568. Even if an accused elects under 568. Meme si Ie prevenu fait un choix en section 536 or re-elects under section 561 vertu de I'article 536 ou un nouveau choix or subsection 565(2) to be tried by a judge au titre de I'article 561 ou du paragraphe or provincial court judge, as the case may 565(2) en vue d'etre juge par un juge ou be, the Attorney General may require the un juge de la cour provinciale, selon Ie accused to be tried by a court composed cas, Ie procureur general peut exiger qu'iI of a judge and jury unless the alleged soit juge par un tribunal compose d'un offence is one that is punishable with juge et d'un jury, a moins que I'infraction imprisonment for five years or less. If the presumee ne soit punissable d'un Attorney General so requires, a judge or emprisonnement de cinq ans ou moins. Le provincial court judge has no jurisdiction to cas echeant, Ie juge ou Ie juge de la cour try the accused under this Part and a provinciale n'a pas competence pour Ie preliminary inquiry must be held if juger aux termes de la presente partie et requested under subsection 536(4), unless une enquete preliminaire doit etre tenue si one has already been held or the re la demande en est faite au titre du election was made under subsection paragraphe 536(4), sauf si une telle 565(2). enquete a deja eu lieu ou si Ie nouveau choix a ete fait aux termes du paragraphe 565(2). 43
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, as amended, s. 648
Restriction on publication Publication interdite
648. (1) After permission to separate is 648. (1) Une fois la permission de se given to members of a jury under separer donnee aux membres d'un jury en subsection 647(1), no information vertu du paragraphe 647(1), aucun regarding any portion of the trial at which renseignement concernant une phase du the jury is not present shall be published in proces se deroulant en I'absence du jury any document or broadcast or transmitted ne peut etre publie ou diffuse de quelque in any way before the jury retires to fa90n que ce soit avant que Ie jury ne se consider its verdict. retire pour deliberer.
Offence Infraction
(2) Every one who fails to comply with (2) Quiconque omet de se conformer au subsection (1) is guilty of an offence paragraphe (1) est coupable d'une punishable on summary conviction. infraction punissable sur declaration de culpabilite par procedure sommaire. (3) [Repealed, 2005, c. 32, s. 21] (3) [Abroge, 2005, ch. 32, art. 21]