R. v. Find (K.) (2001), 146 O.A.C. 236 (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: [2001] O.A.C. TBEd. MY.080
Karl Find (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) and The Criminal Lawyers’ Association (Ontario) and the Attorney General for Alberta (interveners)
(27495; 2001 SCC 32)
Indexed As: R. v. Find (K.)
Supreme Court of Canada
McLachlin, C.J.C., L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ.
May 24, 2001.
Summary:
The accused was tried on 21 counts of sexual assault involving three complainants between the ages of 6 and 12 at the time of the alleged offences. Prior to jury selection, the accused’s counsel applied to challenge potential jurors for cause. Particularly, counsel contended that a realistic potential for juror partiality arose from the ages of the alleged victims, the high number of alleged assaults, and the alleged use of violence. The trial judge dismissed the application and thereafter the accused was convicted by judge and jury of 17 counts. He was sentenced to 15 months concurrent on each count. The accused appealed his conviction and sought leave to appeal the sentence. He argued, inter alia, that the trial judge erred in not allowing his challenges for cause. The Crown sought leave to appeal sentence
The Ontario Court of Appeal, Moldaver, J.A., dissenting, in a decision reported 126 O.A.C. 261, dismissed the accused’s conviction and sentence appeal and allowed the Crown’s sentence appeal. The court increased the accused’s sentence to a penitentiary term of four years to run concurrent on each count. The accused appealed again.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.
Criminal Law – Topic 4310
Procedure – Jury – General – Empanelling – The Supreme Court of Canada reviewed the process of jury selection and the place of challenges for cause in that process – See paragraphs 18 to 29.
Criminal Law – Topic 4310
Procedure – Jury – General – Empanelling – In discussing the jury selection process, the Supreme Court of Canada stated that “the ultimate requirement of a system of jury selection is that it results in a fair trial. A fair trial, however, should not be confused with a perfect trial, or the most advantageous trial possible from the accused’s perspective… ‘[w]hat constitutes a fair trial takes into account not only the perspective of the accused, but the practical limits of the system of justice and the lawful interests of others involved in the process … What the law demands is not perfect justice, but fundamentally fair justice’… At the same time, occasional injustice cannot be accepted as the price of efficiency” – See paragraph 28.
Criminal Law – Topic 4312
Procedure – Jury – Impartiality – [See first and second
Criminal Law – Topic 4316
].
Criminal Law – Topic 4313
Procedure – Jury – Questioning of prospective jurors – [See first and second
Criminal Law – Topic 4316
].
Criminal Law – Topic 4316
Procedure – Jury – Challenges for cause – The accused was convicted by judge and jury of various sexual offences involving three complainants – The accused appealed, arguing that he should have been allowed to challenge each juror for cause (Criminal Code, s. 638(1)(b)) where one prospective juror indicated that he would have a problem hearing the case because he had two young children and that he thought that his feelings about them would influence his attitude towards the case – The Ontario Court of Appeal rejected the accused’s argument – The prospective juror’s statement did not provide evidence of partiality, nor did it show a realistic potential for partiality – The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the decision.
Criminal Law – Topic 4316
Procedure – Jury – Challenges for cause – Section 638 of the Criminal Code permitted a party to challenge for cause on the ground that “a juror is not indifferent between the Queen and the accused” – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that in order to challenge for cause, one must show a “realistic potential” that the jury pool may contain people who are not impartial, in the sense that even upon proper instructions by the trial judge, they may not be able to set aside their prejudice and decide fairly between the Crown and the accused – “As a practical matter, establishing a realistic potential for juror partiality generally requires satisfying the court on two matters: (1) that a widespread bias exists in the community; and (2) that some jurors may be incapable of setting aside this bias, despite trial safeguards, to render an impartial decision. These two components of the challenge for cause test reflect, respectively, the
attitudinal
and
behavioral
components of partiality” – See paragraphs 31 and 32.
Criminal Law – Topic 4316
Procedure – Jury – Challenges for cause – In discussing s. 638 of the Criminal Code, which permitted challenges for cause on the ground that a “juror is not indifferent between the Queen and the accused”, the Supreme Court of Canada reviewed the concept of proof by judicial notice – Particularly, the court noted that judicial notice “dispenses with the need for proof of facts that are clearly uncontroversial or beyond reasonable dispute. Facts judicially noticed are not proved by evidence under oath. Nor are they tested by cross-examination. Therefore, the threshold for judicial notice is strict: a court may properly take judicial notice of facts that are either: (1) so notorious or generally accepted as not to be the subject of debate among reasonable persons; or (2) capable of immediate and accurate demonstration by resort to readily accessible sources of indisputable accuracy” – See paragraph 48.
Evidence – Topic 2200
Special modes of proof – Judicial notice – General principles – General – [See third
Criminal Law – Topic 4316
].
Evidence – Topic 2206
Special modes of proof – Judicial notice – General principles – Criminal cases – [See third
Criminal Law – Topic 4316
].
Cases Noticed:
R. v. Williams (V.D.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1128; 226 N.R. 162; 107 B.C.A.C. 1; 174 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 2].
R. v. Parks (1993), 65 O.A.C. 122; 84 C.C.C.(3d) 353 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].
R. v. A.K. and N.K. (1999), 125 O.A.C. 1; 45 O.R.(3d) 641 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].
R. v. Barrow, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 694; 81 N.R. 321; 87 N.S.R.(2d) 271; 222 A.P.R. 271; 38 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 19].
R. v. Sherratt, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 509; 122 N.R. 241; 73 Man.R.(2d) 161; 3 W.A.C. 161; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 20].
R. v. R.M.G., [1996] 3 S.C.R. 362; 202 N.R. 1; 81 B.C.A.C. 81; 132 W.A.C. 81; 110 C.C.C.(3d) 26, refd to. [para. 27].
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; [1996] 2 W.W.R. 153; 103 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 44 C.R.(4th) 1; 29 W.C.B.(2d) 152, refd to. [para. 28].
R. v. Carosella (N.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 80; 207 N.R. 321; 98 O.A.C. 81; 142 D.L.R.(4th) 595; 112 C.C.C.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 28].
R. v. Lyons, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 309; 80 N.R. 161; 82 N.S.R.(2d) 271; 207 A.P.R. 271; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 61 C.R.(3d) 1; 44 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 28].
R. v. Harrer (H.M.), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 562; 186 N.R. 329; 64 B.C.A.C. 161; 105 W.A.C. 161; 101 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 128 D.L.R.(4th) 98, refd to. [para. 28].
A.M. v. Ryan, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 157; 207 N.R. 81; 85 B.C.A.C. 81; 138 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 28].
R. v. Leipert (R.D.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 281; 207 N.R. 145; 85 B.C.A.C. 162; 138 W.A.C. 162; 112 C.C.C.(3d) 385, refd to. [para. 28].
R. v. Hubbert (1975), 15 N.R. 143; 29 C.C.C.(2d) 279 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].
R. v. Betker (A.) (1997), 100 O.A.C. 81; 115 C.C.C.(3d) 421 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].
R. v. R.L. (1996), 3 C.R.(5th) 70 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 38].
R. v. Mattingly (1994), 28 C.R.(4th) 262 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 38].
R. v. Potts (1982), 66 C.C.C.(2d) 219 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 48].
R. v. Alli (M.) (1996), 93 O.A.C. 98; 110 C.C.C.(3d) 283 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].
R. v. Seaboyer and Gayme, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 577; 128 N.R. 81; 48 O.A.C. 81; 66 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 7 C.R.(4th) 117; 83 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 59].
R. v. Lavallee
, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 852; 108 N.R. 321; 67 Man.R.(2d) 1; 55 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 76 C.R.(3d) 329; [1990] 4 W.W.R. 1, refd to. [para. 59].
R. v. Hillis, [1996] O.J. No. 2739 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 86].
R. v. Osolin, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 595; 162 N.R. 1; 38 B.C.A.C. 81; 62 W.A.C. 81; 86 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 109 D.L.R.(4th) 478; 26 C.R.(4th) 1; 19 C.R.R.(2d) 93, refd to. [para. 101].
R. v. Ewanchuk (S.B.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 330; 235 N.R. 323; 232 A.R. 1; 195 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 101].
R. v. R.W., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 122; 137 N.R. 214; 54 O.A.C. 164; 74 C.C.C.(3d) 134; 13 C.R.(4th) 257, refd to. [para. 102].
R. v. D.D., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 275; 259 N.R. 156; 136 O.A.C. 201; 36 C.R.(5th) 261, refd to. [para. 102].
Statutes Noticed:
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms 1982, sect. 11(d) [para. 16].
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 638(1)(b), sect. 638(2) [para. 16].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Bala, Nicholas, Double Victims: Child Sexual Abuse and the Canadian Criminal Justice System in Tarnopolsky, Walter Surma, Whitman, J., and Ouellette, M., Discrimination in the Law and the Administration of Justice (1993), generally [para. 102].
Granger, Christopher, The Criminal Jury Trial in Canada (2nd Ed. 1996), pp. 83, 84 [para. 19].
Paciocco, David, Challenges for Cause in Jury Selection after Regina v. Parks: Practicalities and Limitations, Canadian Bar Association of Ontario (February 11, 1995), para. 176 [para. 58]; para. 177 [para. 62].
Schulman, Perry, and Myers, Edward, D., Studies on the Jury, Jury Selection, Canada Law Reform Commission (1979), p. 408 [para. 20].
Sopinka, John, Lederman, Sidney N., and Bryant, Alan W., The Law of Evidence in Canada (2nd Ed. 1999), p. 1055 [para. 48].
Tanovich, David M., Paciocco, David M., and Skurka, Steven, Jury Selection in Criminal Trials: Skills, Science and the Law (1997), pp. 239 to 242 [para. 74].
Tarnopolsky, Walter Surma, Whitman, J., and Ouellette, Discrimination in the Law and the Administration of Justice (1993), generally [para. 102].
Vidmar, Neil, Generic Prejudice and the Presumption of Guilt in Sex Abuse Trials (1997), 21 Law & Hum. Behav. 1, generally [para. 38].
Wiener, Richard L., Weiner, Audrey T. Feldman and Grisso, Thomas, Empathy and Biased Assimilation of Testimonies in Cases of Alleged Rape (1989), 13 Law and Hum. Behav. 343, generally [para. 57].
Counsel:
David M. Tanovich and Umberto Sapone, for the appellant;
Jamie Klukach and Jennifer Woollcombe, for the respondent;
David M. Paciocco, for the intervener, The Criminal Lawyers’ Association (Ontario);
Jack Watson, Q.C. (written submission) for the intervener, The Attorney General of Alberta.
Solicitors of Record:
Pinkofsky Lockyer, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant;
Sapone & Cautillo, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant;
Ministry of the Attorney General, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent;
Edelson & Associates, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervener, The Criminal Lawyers’ Association (Ontario);
Attorney General of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, for the intervener, The Attorney General of Alberta.
This appeal was heard on October 13, 2000, before McLachlin, C.J.C., L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision of the court was delivered in both official languages by McLachlin, C.J.C., on May 24, 2001.
