Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Criminal law – Self-crimination – Misconduct – Remedies – Evidence – Reasons for judgment – Whether compelled incriminatory testimony given under oath at an earlier proceeding is substantively admissible at a subsequent trial on a charge of attempting to obstruct justice notwithstanding s. 13 of the Charter – Whether remedy should have been granted for police misconduct in dictating to potential witnesses circumstances under which they were allowed to meet with defence – Whether evidence was admissible – Whether reasons for judgment were sufficient – Whether there was evidence upon which a reasonably instructed jury could convict?

Toronto police officers searched an apartment. The officers allege that the search occurred after a search warrant was issued. The occupants of the apartment alleged that it occurred at a time before the search warrant was issued. The officers’ allegation was recorded in police memo books, a Supplementary Record of Arrest, an Information to obtain another search warrant and affidavits. It was repeated in testimony at a preliminary inquiry. Depending on their roles, officers were charged with attempting to obstruct justice or perjury or both offences. Before trial, a Toronto Police Services’ memo advised officers who were potential witnesses that they did not have to submit to an interview with defence counsel and they should notify Toronto Police Services if they intended to so, so arrangements could be made to have a Professional Standards Special Task Force officer present. The trial judge dismissed a motion by the defence to stay proceedings on the basis that the memo was an abuse of process. At trial, an officer testified that he received authorisation for the search at 10:32 pm at the police station, he served it at the apartment, and he returned to the station by 10:54 pm. To challenge this testimony, Crown counsel admitted the evidence of an officer who conducted trials of the time needed to drive from the police station to the apartment.