R. v. Khan (M.A.) (2001), 160 Man.R.(2d) 161 (SCC);
262 W.A.C. 161
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] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. DE.035
Mohamed Ameerulla Khan (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent)
(27395; 2001 SCC 86)
Indexed As: R. v. Khan (M.A.)
Supreme Court of Canada
McLachlin, C.J.C., L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Major, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ.
December 7, 2001.
Summary:
The accused was convicted of the first degree murder of his wife. The accused appealed his conviction.
The Manitoba Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at 138 Man.R.(2d) 23; 202 W.A.C. 23, dismissed the appeal. The accused appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.
Criminal Law – Topic 4312
Procedure – Jury – General – Impartiality – The accused was convicted of murdering his wife – He had already been separately convicted of murdering his sister – It was revealed by prospective jurors in front of already selected jurors during the challenges for cause that the sister’s murder case had been discussed in the jury array – The accused appealed, arguing that the entire panel should have been rejected as the jurors who had already been selected were tainted by those comments – The Supreme Court of Canada held that there was no irregularity in the jury selection process – In refusing a motion for a mistrial, the presiding justice noted that each trier had been found to be unbiased and had sworn to decide the case based on the evidence – That confirmation that the jury remained unaffected by anything heard during the challenge for cause process removed any appearance of, or actual, unfairness from the jury selection process – See paragraphs 109 to 113.
Criminal Law – Topic 4631
Procedure – Mistrials – General – The accused was convicted of murdering his wife – He had already been separately convicted of murdering his sister – It was revealed by prospective jurors in front of already selected jurors during the challenges for cause that the sister’s murder case had been discussed in the jury array – The accused appealed, arguing that the entire panel should have been rejected – He also argued that the issue should have been litigated before the trial judge, but it could not be because another justice presided over the jury selection – The Supreme Court of Canada held that the hearing of the initial motion for a mistrial by the presiding justice was the fair approach given that the presiding justice was the one who saw and heard what occurred – The trial judge had also reheard the motion and the accused had been given a full opportunity to argue the issue before her – See paragraph 113.
Criminal Law – Topic 4647
Procedure – Mistrials – Review or appeal – [See second and third
Criminal Law – Topic 4860
].
Criminal Law – Topic 4852
Appeals – Indictable offences – Grounds of appeal – Miscarriage of justice – [See third
Criminal Law – Topic 4860
].
Criminal Law – Topic 4860
Appeals – Indictable offences – Grounds of appeal – Question of law or error of law – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that it disagreed with an interpretation of s. 686(1)(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code which would restrict the concept of error of law to an error on which the judgment was or could have been based so as to prejudice the accused – The court stated that “even a textual interpretation supports the view that the judgment based on an error of law need not be linked to the final verdict but can be any decision, obviously having contributed to the ultimate verdict as they all do, that was an erroneous interpretation or application of the law. I see no authority to support the notion that only errors of law containing an element of unfairness or prejudice would constitute errors of law in that context. The determination of whether the error of law was prejudicial to the accused, and if so to what extent, is an analysis traditionally reserved for, and rightly so, to the remedial proviso in s. 686(1)(b)(iii)” – See paragraphs 20 to 23.
Criminal Law – Topic 4860
Appeals – Indictable offences – Grounds of appeal – Question of law or error of law – The accused was convicted of first degree murder – During its deliberations, the jury was provided with transcripts of evidence which contained submissions made in the jury’s absence during a voir dire – In particular, the transcripts revealed that the accused had made comments that had been ruled inadmissible – The trial judge denied a motion to declare a mistrial and instructed the jury that they were to render a verdict based only on the evidence properly before them – She also declined to enter a mistrial after the verdict was rendered – The accused appealed – The Manitoba Court of Appeal applied the curative proviso in s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code (no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice) and dismissed the appeal – The accused appealed – The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal – The court held that the trial judge did not err in law in rejecting the motion for a mistrial and there was no need to turn to the proviso in s. 686(1)(b)(iii) – The trial judge’s admonition to the jury was sufficient to remedy any ill effect that the unedited transcripts might have had – See paragraphs 32 to 37.
Criminal Law – Topic 4860
Appeals – Indictable offences – Grounds of appeal – Question of law or error of law – The accused was convicted of first degree murder – During its deliberations, the jury was provided with transcripts of evidence which contained submissions made in the jury’s absence during a voir dire – In particular, the transcripts revealed that the accused had made comments that had been ruled inadmissible – The trial judge denied a motion to declare a mistrial – The accused appealed – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the question was not whether the giving of the unedited transcripts to the jury was a “miscarriage of justice” or a “procedural irregularity” – Rather, the question was whether the trial judge erred in law by not declaring a mistrial – Therefore, ss. 686(1)(a)(iii) and 686(1)(b)(iv) of the Criminal Code were not engaged and the appeal was governed by the provisions of ss. 686(1)(a)(ii) and 686(1)(b)(iii) – The court was to determine whether the refusal to declare a mistrial was an error of law, and if so, whether it was curable under the proviso in s. 686(1)(b)(iii) (“no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice”) – See paragraphs 9, 19 and 25.
Criminal Law – Topic 5035
Appeals – Indictable offences – Dismissal of appeal if no prejudice, substantial wrong or miscarriage results – General – [See second and third
Criminal Law – Topic 4860
].
Criminal Law – Topic 5038
Appeals – Indictable offences – Dismissal of appeal if no prejudice, substantial wrong or miscarriage results – Procedural error – [See third
Criminal Law – Topic 4860
].
Criminal Law – Topic 5038
Appeals – Indictable offences – Dismissal of appeal if no prejudice, substantial wrong or miscarriage results – Procedural error – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that “[i]n summary, when an error or irregularity of a procedural nature has occurred at trial, s. 686 [Criminal Code] provides that: If the procedural irregularity amounts to or is based on an error of law, it falls under s. 686(1)(a)(ii) and (1)(b)(iii). If the procedural irregularity was previously (before 1985) classified as an irregularity causing a loss of jurisdiction: s. 686(1)(b)(iv) provides that this is no longer fatal to the conviction, and an analysis of prejudice must be undertaken, in accordance with the principles set out in s. 686(1)(b)(iii). If the procedural error did not amount to, or originate in an error of law, which is rare, s. 686(1)(a)(iii) applies and the reviewing court must determine whether a miscarriage of justice occurred. If so, there are no remedial provisions in s. 686(1)(b) that can cure such a defect, and the appeal must be allowed and either an acquittal entered or a new trial ordered” – See paragraph 18.
Cases Noticed:
Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 11].
R. v. Cloutier (1988), 27 O.A.C. 246; 43 C.C.C.(3d) 35 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 11, 95].
R. v. Bain, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 91; 133 N.R. 1; 51 O.A.C. 161; 69 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 11].
R. v. Fenton (1984), 11 C.C.C.(3d) 109 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].
R. v. Karpinski, [1957] S.C.R. 343, refd to. [para. 13].
R. v. Simons (1976), 30 C.C.C.(2d) 162 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].
R. v. Sarazin (1978), 20 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 91; 53 A.P.R. 91; 39 C.C.C.(2d) 131 (P.E.I.S.C.), refd to. [para. 13].
R. v. Dwyer and Lauzon, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 481; 27 N.R. 488, reving. (1978), 42 C.C.C.(2d) 83 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].
R. v. Brodie, [1936] S.C.R. 188, refd to. [para. 13].
R. v. Vallee, [1969] 3 C.C.C. 293 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].
R. v. Major, [1977] 1 S.C.R. 826; 8 N.R. 210, refd to. [para. 13].
R. v. Côté, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 8; 13 N.R. 271, refd to. [para. 13].
R. v. Elliott, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 393; 18 N.R. 485, refd to. [para. 13].
Kipp v. Ontario (Attorney General), [1965] S.C.R. 57, refd to. [para. 13].
R. v. Sheets, [1971] S.C.R. 614, refd to. [para. 13].
R. v. Meunier (1965), 48 C.R. 14 (Que. C.A.), affd. [1966] S.C.R. 399, refd to. [paras. 14, 95].
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. 14].
R. v. Rowbotham et al. (1988), 25 O.A.C. 321; 41 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].
R. v. Korponey, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 41; 44 N.R. 103, refd to. [para. 14].
Trenholm v. Ontario (Attorney General), [1940] S.C.R. 301, refd to. [para. 14].
R. v. Doyle, [1977] 1 S.C.R. 597; 9 N.R. 285; 10 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 45; 17 A.P.R. 45; 29 C.C.C.(2d) 177, refd to. [para. 14].
R. v. Krannenburg, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1053; 31 N.R. 206; 20 A.R. 504, refd to. [para. 14].
R. v. Joinson (1986), 32 C.C.C.(3d) 542 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].
Bell, Re, [1988] B.C.J. No. 1897 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 15].
R. v. Fanjoy, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 233; 62 N.R. 253; 11 O.A.C. 381; 21 C.C.C.(3d) 312, refd to. [paras. 17, 62].
R. v. L.C.B. (1996), 88 O.A.C. 81; 104 C.C.C.(3d) 353 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].
R. v. Silvini (1991), 50 O.A.C. 376; 68 C.C.C.(3d) 251 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].
R. v. Cameron (1991), 44 O.A.C. 278; 64 C.C.C.(3d) 96 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 17, 62].
Colpitts v. R., [1965] S.C.R. 739, refd to. [para. 28].
R. v. Wildman, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 311; 55 N.R. 27; 5 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 28].
R. v. F.F.B., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 697; 148 N.R. 161; 120 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 332 A.P.R. 1; 79 C.C.C.(3d) 112, refd to. [para. 28].
R. v. B.F.F. – see R. v. F.F.B.
R. v. Bevan and Griffith, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 599; 154 N.R. 245; 64 O.A.C. 165; 104 D.L.R.(4th) 180; 82 C.C.C.(3d) 310; 21 C.R.(4th) 277, refd to. [paras. 28, 90].
R. v. Chibok (1956), 24 S.C.R. 354, refd to. [para. 29].
R. v. Tran (Q.D.), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 951; 170 N.R. 81; 133 N.S.R.(2d) 81; 380 A.P.R. 81; 92 C.C.C.(3d) 218; 32 C.R.(4th) 34, refd to. [para. 29].
R. v. Jolivet (D.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 751; 254 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 30].
R. v. Stone (B.T.), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 290; 239 N.R. 201; 123 B.C.A.C. 1; 201 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 30].
R. v. Ménard (S.), [1998] 2 S.C.R. 109; 228 N.R. 100; 111 O.A.C. 1; 125 C.C.C.(3d) 416, refd to. [para. 30].
R. v. Jacquard (C.O.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 314; 207 N.R. 246; 157 N.S.R.(2d) 161; 462 A.P.R. 161; 113 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [paras. 30, 85].
R. v. Rockey (S.E.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 829; 204 N.R. 214; 95 O.A.C. 134, refd to. [para. 30].
R. v. MacGillivray (D.G.), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 890; 179 N.R. 83; 140 N.S.R.(2d) 81; 399 A.P.R. 81, refd to. [para. 30].
R. v. Haughton (D.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 516; 179 N.R. 1; 79 O.A.C. 319, refd to. [para. 30].
United Nurses of Alberta v. Alberta (Attorney General), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 901; 135 N.R. 321; 125 A.R. 241; 14 W.A.C. 241; 1 Alta. L.R.(3d) 129; [1992] 3 W.W.R. 481, refd to. [para. 30].
R. v. Gunn, [1974] S.C.R. 273, refd to. [para. 30].
R. v. Klatt (S.T.) (1994), 157 A.R. 355; 77 W.A.C. 355; 94 C.C.C.(3d) 147 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].
R. v. Wong (1992), 12 B.C.A.C. 211; 23 W.A.C. 211 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].
R. v. P.L.S., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 909; 122 N.R. 321; 90 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 234; 280 A.P.R. 234; 64 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 5 C.R.(4th) 351, refd to. [paras. 31, 90].
R. v. Nijjar (B.S.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 320; 223 N.R. 67; 103 B.C.A.C. 247; 169 W.A.C. 247, refd to. [para. 31].
R. v. Alward and Mooney, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 559; 16 N.R. 127; 18 N.B.R.(2d) 97; 26 A.P.R. 97; 35 C.C.C.(2d) 392, refd to. [para. 31].
R. v. Hutchison and Ambrose, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 717; 9 N.R. 431; 14 N.B.R.(2d) 452; 15 A.P.R. 452, refd to. [para. 31].
R. v. Dufresne (G.) (1988), 11 Q.A.C. 20; [1988] R.J.Q. 38 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].
R. v. Welch (1980), 5 Sask.R. 175 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].
R. v. Duke (1985), 62 A.R. 294; 22 C.C.C.(3d) 217 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 52].
R. v. Watson (1991), 4 B.C.A.C. 253; 9 W.A.C. 253 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 52].
R. v. Armstrong, [1970] 1 C.C.C. 136 (N.S.C.A.), refd to. [para. 52].
R. v. Rollocks (R.) (1994), 72 O.A.C. 269; 91 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 52, 80].
R. v. Emkeit, [1974] S.C.R. 133, refd to. [para. 52].
R. v. Paterson (D.R.) (1998), 102 B.C.A.C. 200; 166 W.A.C. 200 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 52].
R. v. Joanisse (R.) (1995), 85 O.A.C. 186; 102 C.C.C.(3d) 35 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 62].
R. v. Curragh Inc. et al., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 537; 209 N.R. 252; 159 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 468 A.P.R. 1; 5 C.R.(5th) 291; 113 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 70].
R. v. Find, [2001] S.C.R. 863; 269 N.R. 149; 146 O.A.C. 236, refd to. [para. 72].
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. 72].
R. v. S.G.G., [1997] 2 S.C.R. 716; 214 N.R. 161; 94 B.C.A.C. 81; 152 W.A.C. 81; 116 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 72].
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. 72].
R. v. Hertrich (1982), 67 C.C.C.(2d) 510 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 73].
R. v. Olbey, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1008; 30 N.R. 152; 50 C.C.C.(2d) 257; 14 C.R.(3d) 44, refd to. [para. 75].
R. v. Cathro, [1956] S.C.R. 101, refd to. [para. 77].
R. v. Ferguson (L.) (2000), 130 O.A.C. 253; 142 C.C.C.(3d) 353 (C.A.), affd. [2001] 1 S.C.R. 281; 265 N.R. 201; 142 O.A.C. 92, refd to. [para. 77].
R. v. Martineau (1986), 33 C.C.C.(3d) 573 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 79].
R. v. Lessard, Michaud et Pelletier (1992), 49 Q.A.C. 119; 74 C.C.C.(3d) 552 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 79].
R. v. Taillefer (1995), 100 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 79].
R. v. Siu (H.K.M.) (1998), 106 B.C.A.C. 161; 172 W.A.C. 161; 124 C.C.C.(3d) 301 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 80].
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Tobiass, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 391; 218 N.R. 81; 118 C.C.C.(3d) 443, refd to. [para. 80].
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. 80].
R. v. Corbett, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 670; 85 N.R. 81; 41 C.C.C.(3d) 385, refd to. [para. 81].
R. v. Imrich, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 622; 15 N.R. 227; 34 C.C.C.(2d) 143, refd to. [para. 85].
R. v. Lewis, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 821; 27 N.R. 451, refd to. [para. 85].
R. v. Arcangioli (G.), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 129; 162 N.R. 280; 69 O.A.C. 26; 87 C.C.C.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 85].
R. v. G.D.B., [2000] 1 S.C.R. 520; 253 N.R. 201; 261 A.R. 1; 225 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 86].
R. v. Terceira (J.) (1998), 107 O.A.C. 15; 123 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (C.A.), affd. [1999] 3 S.C.R. 866; 250 N.R. 98; 129 O.A.C. 283, refd to. [para. 86].
R. v. Pargelen (G.) (1996), 95 O.A.C. 200; 112 C.C.C.(3d) 263 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 86].
R. v. Chambers (No. 2), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1293; 119 N.R. 321; 59 C.C.C.(3d) 321, refd to. [para. 86].
R. v. Brooks (F.A.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 237; 250 N.R. 103; 129 O.A.C. 205, refd to. [para. 90].
R. v. Cleghorn (L.), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 175; 186 N.R. 49; 85 O.A.C. 129, refd to. [para. 90].
R. v. Fabre (M.) (1990), 46 Q.A.C. 133 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 97].
R. v. Deyardin (1997), 119 C.C.C.(3d) 365 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 97].
Primeau v. R., [2000] R.J.Q. 696 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 99].
R. v. Khan (M.A.) (1996), 110 Man.R.(2d) 241; 118 W.A.C. 241; 108 C.C.C.(3d) 108 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 109].
Statutes Noticed:
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 686(1) [para. 10].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Béliveau, Pierre, and Vauclair, Martin, Traité général de preuve et de procédure pénales (6th Ed. 1999), pp. 762 [para. 74]; 833, 834 [para. 97].
Cohen, Stanley A., Controlling the Trial Process: The Judge and the Conduct of Trial (1977), 36 C.R.N.S. 15, generally [para. 74].
Del Buono, Vincent M., Criminal Procedure in Canada (1982), pp. 457 to 461 [para. 88].
Doob, Anthony N., and Greenspan, Edward L., Perspectives in Criminal Law (1985), p. 94 [para. 29].
Ewaschuk, Eugene G., Criminal Pleadings & Practice in Canada (2nd Ed. 1987) (2001 Looseleaf Update) (Release 49), vol. 2, paras. 1023 to 1080 [para. 97].
McKinnon, Gil D., The Criminal Lawyers’ Guide to Appellate Court Practice (1997), p. 89 [para. 74].
Mewett, Alan W., No Substantial Miscarriage of Justice in Doob, Anthony N., and Greenspan, Edward L., Perspectives in Criminal Law (1985), p. 94 [para. 29].
Price, Ronald R., and Mallea, Paula W., Not by Words Alone, Criminal Appeals and the No Substantial Wrong or Miscarriage of Justice Rule, in Del Buono, Vincent M., Criminal Procedure in Canada (1982), pp. 525 to 529 [para. 88].
Counsel:
Martin D. Glazer, for the appellant.
Richard A. Saull, for the respondent.
Solicitors of Record:
Martin Glazer Law Office, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the appellant.
Manitoba Justice, Manitoba, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard on December 12, 2000, before McLachlin, C.J.C., L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Major, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The judgment of the Supreme Court was delivered on both official languages on December 7, 2001, including the following opinions:
Arbour, J. (McLachlin, C.J.C., L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Major and Binnie, JJ., concurring) – see paragraphs 1 to 38;
LeBel, J. – see paragraphs 39 to 126.
