Reduced Level of Disclosure for Regulatory Offences that are Minor and Routine


R. v. Stinchcombe 1991 CanLII 45 (SCC), [1991] 68 C.C.C. (3d) 1 (S.C.C.) is the leading case regarding disclosure obligations on the part of the prosecution.  It establishes that the prosecution shall disclose all relevant evidence within its possession.  The obligation is very broad but not unlimited.

In R. v. Collins, when discussing disclosure obligations in the regulatory offense context the court observed that,

... The vast majority of regulatory offences do not rise to this level of complexity, however. Some regulatory offences are so simple, in fact, that they are classified as absolute liability offences. Others, including most 'traffic' violations are minor and routine. When one takes into account all bylaws created by delegated legislative authority to every municipality in the province, it is safe to conclude that the majority of regulatory offences are simple matters requiring effective but also efficient litigation processes. In the case of regulatory offences: (1) where the case for the prosecution is not complex; (2) the consequences of the alleged wrongdoing are not grave; and (3) the penalties are not significant, courts have been prepared to 'draw the line' at a reduced level of disclosure.

[2010] A.J. No. 666 (AB Prov. Ct); See also R. v. Hoffman, et al, [2006] O.J. No. 5162 (C.J.); leave denied 41 M.V.R. (5th) 52 (Ont.C.A.). 


Mississauga (City) v. Atis, 2017 ONCJ 260 (CanLII)

Defence disclosure motion (in the context of a speeding charge) for, among other things, the discipline and human resource records of the charging officer.  The Court held that for a court to order McNeil reporting in this type of routine and minor matter without a basis for the assertion of likely relevance beyond the mere speculation would open the floodgates to protracted, complicated processes that the Provincial Offences Act seeks to avoid.  Motion dismissed.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Warrantless Drug Searches (Section 11(7) of the CDSA)

Were there exigent circumstances? Did the exigent circumstances render it impracticable to obtain a warrant? Section 11(7)   of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act states: (7) A peace officer may exercise any of the powers described in subsection (1), (5) or (6) without a warrant if the conditions for obtaining a warrant exist but by reason of exigent circumstances it would be impracticable to obtain one. Subsection (1)   of s. 11 empowers a peace officer to conduct a warranted search of a place for, inter alia , a controlled substance and to seize it. Section 11(7), therefore, empowers a peace officer to conduct a warrantless search for a controlled substance, so long as conditions for obtaining a warrant existed and exigent circumstances made it impracticable for the officer to obtain a warrant. For a warrantless entry into a residence to satisfy section 11(7) , the Crown must show that the entry was compelled by urgency, calling for immediate police action to prese
Read more

Arrested at Home: Feeney Warrants

At common law, where the police had reasonable grounds to arrest a suspect and reasonable grounds to believe a suspect was in a private dwelling-house, they were entitled to enter and arrest the suspect, with or without an arrest warrant, if proper announcement was made. See R. v. Landry , 1986 CanLII 48 (SCC), [1986] 1 S.C.R. 145 , and Eccles v. Bourque et al. , 1974 CanLII 191 (SCC), [1975] 2 S.C.R. 739 ). However, in the 1997 decision of R. v. Feeney , the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the common law violated s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that generally, warrantless arrests within private dwellings were prohibited.  Absent exigent circumstances or cases of hot pursuit, an entry warrant would be required to enter a dwelling house to make an arrest.    R. v. Feeney , 1997 CanLII 342 (SCC), at paras. 44-51.  Parliament responded by enacting sections 529-529.5 of the Criminal Code , which, among other things, creates two distinct authorizatio
Read more

Night time Execution of a Search Warrant

Warrants Authorized under the Criminal Code The Criminal Code requires that if a warrant is to be executed at night (after 9:00 p.m., see Criminal Code , s. 2), the night time execution must be justified under the terms of s. 488 of the Criminal Code .    Section 488 of the Criminal Code is not made applicable to warrants and telewarrants issued under the authority of section 11 of the CDSA, which may be executed “at any time”.  R. v. Shivrattan, 2017 ONCA 23; R. v. Saunders , 2003 NLCA 63, 181 C.C.C. (3d) 268, at paras. 27, 31-32, affirmed on other grounds, 2004 SCC 70, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 505; R. v. Dueck , 2005 BCCA 448, 200 C.C.C. (3d) 378, at paras. 17-21; and R. v. Newell , [2007] O.J. No. 2348, at para. 47 (Ont. S.C.). Warrants Authorized under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act Unlike warrants issued under the Criminal Code , there is no statutory presumption that warrants issued under s. 11 of the CDSA are to be executed before 9:00 p.m. unless night t
Read more