Implementation Component to Right to Counsel: Difference between revisions

From Criminal Law Notebook
VisualWikitext
 
m Text replacement - "\{\{Fr\|([^\}\}]+)\}\}" to "Fr:$1"
 
(139 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
[[Fr:Élément_de_mise_en_œuvre_du_droit_à_l'assistance_d'un_avocat]]
{{Currency2|May|2021}}
{{HeaderRightToCounsel}}
{{HeaderRightToCounsel}}
==General Principles==
==General Principles==
<!-- -->
{{seealso|Informational Component to Right to Counsel}}
The implementation component is engaged once the detainee indicates a desire to exercise the right to counsel.<Ref>
The implementation component is engaged once the detainee indicates a desire to exercise the right to counsel.<ref>
R v Luong, [http://canlii.ca/t/5rph 2000 ABCA 301] (CanLII) at para 12</ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Luong|5rph|2000 ABCA 301 (CanLII)|149 CCC (3d) 571}}{{perABCA|Berger JA}}{{atL|5rph|12}}</ref>


The implementation component involves two aspects: <Ref>R v Ross, [http://canlii.ca/t/1ft8b 1989 CanLII 134] (SCC), [1989] 1 SCR 3</ref>
The implementation component involves two aspects: <ref>
# the officer must provide the detainee with reasonable opportunity to exercise the right to retain counsel without delay except in urgent or dangerous circumstances.<Ref> R v Bartle [http://canlii.ca/t/1frrg 1994 CanLII 64] (SCC), (1994), 92 CCC (3d) 289 (S.C.C.) at 301</ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Ross|1ft8b|1989 CanLII 134 (SCC)|[1989] 1 SCR 3}}{{perSCC|Lamer J}}</ref>
# the officer must provide the detainee with reasonable opportunity to exercise the right to retain counsel without delay except in urgent or dangerous circumstances.<ref>  
{{CanLIIRP|Bartle|1frrg|1994 CanLII 64 (SCC)|92 CCC (3d) 289}}{{perSCC|Lamer CJ}} at 301</ref>
# refrain from attempting to elicit evidence from the detainee until he has had a reasonable opportunity to retain and instruct counsel except in urgent or dangerous circumstances.<ref>
# refrain from attempting to elicit evidence from the detainee until he has had a reasonable opportunity to retain and instruct counsel except in urgent or dangerous circumstances.<ref>
R v Bartle, at 301</ref>
{{supra1|Bartle}}{{atp|301}}</ref>


Consideration of the elements of the implementation component, particularly the "reasonableness", requires the court to consider the "totality of circumstances".<ref>
Consideration of the elements of the implementation component, particularly the "reasonableness", requires the court to consider the "totality of circumstances."<ref>
R v Brown, [http://canlii.ca/t/23lj4 2009 NBCA 27] (CanLII) at para 23
{{CanLIIRP|Brown|23lj4|2009 NBCA 27 (CanLII)|889 APR 1}}{{perNBCA|Richard JA}} {{atL|23lj4|23}}
</ref> There should be no clear line drawn between "reasonable opportunity" and "reasonable diligence".<ref>
</ref>
Brown</ref>
There should be no clear line drawn between "reasonable opportunity" and "reasonable diligence."<ref>
{{ibid1|Brown}}</ref>


If the implementational component was not satisfied then there is a breach of the Charter right.<ref>
If the implementational component was not satisfied then there is a breach of the Charter right.<ref>
R v Luong at para 12</ref>
{{supra1|Luong}}{{atL|5rph|12}}</ref>


The right to counsel does not include a right to use of a specific phone that is available. It also does not impose an obligation upon police to give access to their own cell phones or those of others in order to facilitate access to counsel.<ref>
The right to counsel does not include a right to use of a specific phone that is available. It also does not impose an obligation upon police to give access to their own cell phones or those of others in order to facilitate access to counsel.<ref>
R v Taylor, [http://canlii.ca/t/g836k 2014 SCC 50] (CanLII)
{{CanLIIRP|Taylor|g836k|2014 SCC 50 (CanLII)|[2014] 2 SCR 495}}{{perSCC-H|Abella J}}
</ref>
</ref>


'''Application of Implementation Component'''<br>
; Application of Implementation Component
The implementation component does not arise until there is an expressed desire to exercise those rights.<Ref>R v Baig, [http://canlii.ca/t/1ftkm 1987 CanLII 40] (SCC), [1987] 2 SCR 537, at para 6; R v Bartle at 151-192</ref>
The implementation component does not arise until there is an expressed desire to exercise those rights.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Baig|1ftkm|1987 CanLII 40 (SCC)|[1987] 2 SCR 537}}{{TheCourtSCC}}{{atL|1ftkm|6}}<br>
{{supra1|Bartle}}{{atps|151-192}}</ref>


Once the accused has been informed of his rights, he has an obligation to pursue them. <Ref>R v Tremblay, [http://canlii.ca/t/1ftm3 1987 CanLII 28] (SCC), [1987] 2 SCR 435<br>  
Once the accused has been informed of his rights, he has an obligation to pursue them. <ref>
R v McCrimmon, [2010] 2 SCR 402, [http://canlii.ca/t/2cvjx 2010 SCC 36] (CanLII), at para 18<br>  
{{CanLIIRP|Tremblay|1ftm3|1987 CanLII 28 (SCC)|[1987] 2 SCR 435}}{{perSCC|Lamer J}}<br>  
R v Willier, [http://canlii.ca/t/2cvjv 2010 SCC 37] (CanLII), at para 33</ref>
{{CanLIIRP|McCrimmon|2cvjx|2010 SCC 36 (CanLII)|[2010] 2 SCR 402}}{{perSCC-H|McLachlin CJ and Charron J}}{{atL|2cvjx|18}}<br>  
{{CanLIIRP|Willier|2cvjv|2010 SCC 37 (CanLII)|[2010] 2 SCR 429}}{{perSCC-H|McLachlin CJ and Charron J}}{{atL|2cvjv|33}}</ref>


The right to be informed of the right to counsel does not go so far as to guarantee the appreciation of all the information given.<Ref>
Engagement of the right does not require the detainee to specifically ask for access to a phone.<ref>
R v Kennedy, [http://canlii.ca/t/2f10g 1995 CanLII 9863] (NL CA), [1995] N.J. No. 340, 135 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 271 (Nfld. C.A.) at 28 to 31</ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Manninen|1ftmx|1987 CanLII 67 (SCC)|[1987] 1 SCR 1233}}{{perSCC|Lamer J}}
</ref>


'''Form of Access to Counsel'''<br>
The right to be informed of the right to counsel does not go so far as to guarantee the appreciation of all the information given.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Kennedy|2f10g|1995 CanLII 9863 (NL CA)|[1995] NJ No 340, 135 Nfld. & PEIR 271 (Nfld. C.A.)}}{{perNLCA|Marshall JA}} at 28 to 31</ref>
 
; Burden of Proof
The burden is upon the accused to establish on a balance of probabilities that the accused was denied his right to counsel.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Baig|1ftkm|1987 CanLII 40 (SCC)|[1987] 2 SCR 537}}{{TheCourtSCC}}
</ref>
However, where the Crown is relying upon waiver of the right, it is the Crown's burden to prove such waiver.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Prosper|1frrj|1994 CanLII 65 (SCC)|[1994] 3 SCR 236}}{{perSCC|Lamer CJ}}
</ref>
 
; Form of Access to Counsel
The accused is not entitled to counsel to be present in person during an interrogation.<ref>
The accused is not entitled to counsel to be present in person during an interrogation.<ref>
R v Sinclair, [http://canlii.ca/t/2cvjs 2010 SCC 35] (CanLII), [2010] 2 SCR 310<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Sinclair|2cvjs|2010 SCC 35 (CanLII)|[2010] 2 SCR 310}}{{perSCC-H|MacLachlin CJ and Charron J}}<br>
R v McCrimmon{{supra}}<br>
{{supra1|McCrimmon}}<br>
</ref>
</ref>


There is nothing preventing the accused from having counsel present with the consent of the police.<ref>
There is nothing preventing the accused from having counsel present with the consent of the police.<ref>
Sinclair{{supra}}<br>
{{supra1|Sinclair}}<br>
</ref>
</ref>


'''Choice of Counsel'''<br>
; Choice of Counsel
The right to counsel includes the right to ''counsel of choice'' and that the counsel represent the accused throughout. This right is limited to counsel who are competent to undertake the retainer; willing to act; available to represent the accused within a reasonable time; and free of any conflicts.<Ref>R v McCallen, [http://canlii.ca/t/1f97c 1999 CanLII 3685] (ON CA), (1999), 131 CCC 518 (Ont.C.A.)</ref>  
The right to counsel includes the right to ''counsel of choice'' and that the counsel represents the accused throughout. This right is limited to counsel who are competent to undertake the retainer; willing to act; available to represent the accused within a reasonable time; and free of any conflicts.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|McCallen|1f97c|1999 CanLII 3685 (ON CA)|131 CCC 518}}{{perONCA|C'Connor JA}}</ref>  


If the chosen lawyer is not available within a reasonable amount of time, the detainee is expected to call another lawyer or else the police duty to hold off questioning.<Ref>
If the chosen lawyer is not available within a reasonable amount of time, the detainee is expected to call another lawyer or else the police duty to hold off questioning.<ref>
R v Willier<br>  
{{supra1|Willier}}<br>  
R v LeClair, [http://canlii.ca/t/1ft8b 1989 CanLII 134]</ref>  
{{CanLIIRP|LeClair|1ft8b|1989 CanLII 134 (SCC)|[1989] 1 SCR 3}}{{perSCC|Lamer J}}</ref>  
What amount to reasonable time depends on the circumstances.<Ref>R v Whitford, [http://canlii.ca/t/2dd7h 1997 ABCA 85] (CanLII), (1997) 196 AR 97 (CA)</ref>
What amount to reasonable time depends on the circumstances.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Whitford|2dd7h|1997 ABCA 85 (CanLII)|(1997) 196 AR 97 (CA)}}{{perABCA|Berger JA}}</ref>


'''Mental State of Detainee'''<br>
; Mental State of Detainee
The detainee must possess an operating mind for the right to be properly exercised.<Ref>
The detainee must possess an operating mind for the right to be properly exercised.<ref>
R v Whittle, [http://canlii.ca/t/1frqt 1994 CanLII 55] (SCC), [1994] 2 SCR 914</ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Whittle|1frqt|1994 CanLII 55 (SCC)|[1994] 2 SCR 914}}{{perSCC-H|Sopinka J}}</ref>


'''Physical State of Detainee'''<br>
; Physical State of Detainee
Where an accused is brought to hospital due to injuries and detained by police, they still have an obligation to provide access to counsel.<ref>
Where an accused is brought to hospital due to injuries and detained by police, they still have an obligation to provide access to counsel.<ref>
R v Taylor, [http://canlii.ca/t/g836k 2014 SCC 50] (CanLII)
{{CanLIIRP|Taylor|g836k|2014 SCC 50 (CanLII)|[2014] 2 SCR 495}}{{perSCC-H|Abella J}}
</ref> The burden is upon the police to prove that there are any "logical or medical barriers" to get the accused in contact with a lawyer.<ref>
</ref>
Taylor</ref>
The burden is upon the police to prove that there are any "logical or medical barriers" to get the accused in contact with a lawyer.<ref>
{{ibid1|Taylor}}</ref>


The police should in all cases make inquiries into the ability of the hospital to facilitate access and the accused health to satisfy himself whether there are barriers to access.<ref>
The police should in all cases make inquiries into the ability of the hospital to facilitate access and the accused health to satisfy himself whether there are barriers to access.<ref>
Taylor</ref>
{{ibid1|Taylor}}</ref>


{{Reflist|2}}
{{Reflist|2}}
===Suspension of Implementational Component===
There are limited specific circumstances where the implementational component may be suspended.<ref>
{{CanLIIR|Rover|hv1v1|2018 ONCA 745 (CanLII)|143 O.R. (3d) 135}}<br>
{{CanLIIR|Keshavarz|jnrq0|2022 ONCA 312 (CanLII)}}{{atL|jnrq0|71}}
</ref>
Those situations include safety of police or the public.<ref>
{{supra1|Rover}}{{atL|hv1v1|26}}<Br>
Suberu, at para. 42{{fix}}<br>
{{supra1|Keshavarz}} at para 71
{{CanLIIRP|Griffith|jft3x|2021 ONCA 302 (CanLII)|408 CCC (3d) 244}}{{perONCA|Jamal JA}}{{AtL|jft3x|38}}<br>
</ref>
It can also include execution of a search warrant<Ref>
{{supra1|Keshavarz}} at para 71<Br>
</ref>
or securing evidence.<Ref>
{{supra1|Keshavarz}} at para 73<Br>
</ref>
The officer must have some reasonable basis to believe that suspension is necessary to achieve one of the specified goals.<Ref>
{{supra1|Keshavarz}} at para 74<Br>
{{supra1|Rover}}{{atL|hv1v1|27}} (suspension must be founded "on some reasonable basis, that police or public safety, or the need to preserve evidence, justifies some delay in granting access to counsel")<Br>
</ref>
{{Reflist|2}}
==Duty to Holding Off on Questioning==
Once the detainee indicates they wish to speak to counsel, the police have an obligation to cease all question until access to counsel has been facilitated.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Manninen|g1f7s|1983 CanLII 1726 (ON CA)|37 CR (3d) 162 aff'd [1987] 1 SCR 1233, [http://canlii.ca/t/1ftmx 1987 CanLII 67] (SCC)}}{{perSCC|Lamer J}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Prosper|1frrj|1994 CanLII 65 (SCC)|[1994] 3 SCR 236}}{{perSCC|Lamer CJ}}, at p. 269 (SCR)<br>
</ref>


==Holding Off on Questioning==
The obligation to hold off on questioning does not include questions that are not "about the offence", "to gather evidence", or for "investigative purpose[s]".
The obligation to hold off on questioning does not include questions that are not "about the offence", "to gather evidence", or for "investigative purpose[s]".
<ref>
<ref>
R v Sinclair, [http://canlii.ca/t/1wgj1 2003 BCSC 2040] (CanLII), [2003] BCJ No. 3258, aff’d [http://canlii.ca/t/1w7rp 2008 BCCA 127] (CanLII), 169 C.R.R. (2d) 232, aff’d [http://canlii.ca/t/2cvjs 2010 SCC 35] (CanLII), 259 CCC (3d) 443<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Sinclair|1wgj1|2003 BCSC 2040 (CanLII)|[2003] BCJ No 3258}}{{perBCSC|Powers J}}, aff’d [http://canlii.ca/t/1w7rp 2008 BCCA 127] (CanLII), 169 CRR (2d) 232{{perBCCA|Frankel JA}}, aff’d [http://canlii.ca/t/2cvjs 2010 SCC 35] (CanLII), 259 CCC (3d) 443{{perSCC-H|McLachlin CJ and Charron J}}<br>
R v Dupe, [http://canlii.ca/t/2f8bt 2010 ONSC 6594] (CanLII) at para 24 (must hold off on "questioning intended to elicit evidence, sometimes referred to as investigative questioning")<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Dupe|2f8bt|2010 ONSC 6594 (CanLII)|OJ No 5757}}{{perONSC|Dambrot J}}{{atL|2f8bt|24}} (must hold off on "questioning intended to elicit evidence, sometimes referred to as investigative questioning")<br>
</ref>
</ref>
Questions that are to "assist the accused to exercise his rights, preserve his property, provide care for his family, or protect his health and safety or the health and safety of others" are valid at any time.<ref>
Questions that are to "assist the accused to exercise his rights, preserve his property, provide care for his family, or protect his health and safety or the health and safety of others" are valid at any time.<ref>
Dupe at para 24<br>
{{ibid1|Dupe}}{{atL|2f8bt|24}}<br>
</ref>
 
A proactive request for counsel before the completion of the informational script may police to change their script to not include anything that may seek to elicit evidence, such as the question “do you wish to say anything?”<REf>
{{CanLIIRP|GTD|hqh5j|2018 SCC 7 (CanLII)|[2018] 1 SCR 220}} per Brown J at para 2
</ref>
</ref>


Line 79: Line 135:
==Reasonable Opportunity to Access Counsel==
==Reasonable Opportunity to Access Counsel==
The police must give the accused a reasonable opportunity to contact counsel on arrest in order to foster fair his fair treatment.<ref>
The police must give the accused a reasonable opportunity to contact counsel on arrest in order to foster fair his fair treatment.<ref>
R v Brydges [http://canlii.ca/t/1ft0k 1990 CanLII 123] (SCC), (1990), 53 CCC (3d) 330 (S.C.C.)
{{CanLIIRP|Brydges|1ft0k|1990 CanLII 123 (SCC)|53 CCC (3d) 330}}{{perSCC|Lamer J}}
</ref>
</ref>


'''Failed Attempts to Contact Counsel'''<br>
The police obligation does not extend to arranging for lawyers to be available for free advice at any time or place.<ref>
{{CanLIIR-N|Cobham| (1993), 80 CCC (3d) 449}} reversed on other grounds at [http://canlii.ca/t/1frpj 1994 CanLII 69 (SCC)], [1994] 3 SCR 360
</ref>
 
; Failed Attempts to Contact Counsel
Where the accused fails to reach the lawyer of choice, leaves a voicemail and expects to get a call back but does not tell the officer, and then refuses other counsel, he cannot claim that he was not given reasonable access to counsel.<ref>
Where the accused fails to reach the lawyer of choice, leaves a voicemail and expects to get a call back but does not tell the officer, and then refuses other counsel, he cannot claim that he was not given reasonable access to counsel.<ref>
R v Top [http://canlii.ca/t/2dmvz 1989 ABCA 98] (CanLII), (1989), 48 CCC (3d) 493 (Alta.C.A.)<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Top|2dmvz|1989 ABCA 98 (CanLII)|48 CCC (3d) 493}}{{perABCA|Cote JA}}<br>
</ref>
</ref>


Facilitating a single failed attempt to call counsel of choice of an accused may or may not be sufficient.<ref>
Facilitating a single failed attempt to call counsel of choice of an accused may or may not be sufficient.<ref>
R v Richfield, [http://canlii.ca/t/1fzl4 2003 CanLII 52164] (ON CA), [2003] O.J. No. 3230 at paras 11 to 12 - left voice mail with counsel of choice, waited an hour. Refused to accept duty counsel. Police found diligent.
{{CanLIIRP|Richfield|1fzl4|2003 CanLII 52164 (ON CA)|[2003] OJ No 3230}}{{perONCA|Weiler JA}}{{atsL|1fzl4|11| to 12}} - left voice mail with counsel of choice, waited an hour. Refused to accept duty counsel. Police found diligent.
c.f.  R v Millar, [http://canlii.ca/t/222r6 2008 ONCJ 685] (CanLII) at paras 23 to 24 - single phone call insufficient<br>
cf.  {{CanLIIRx|Millar|222r6|2008 ONCJ 685 (CanLII)}}{{perONCJ|Reinhardt J}}{{atsL|222r6|23| to 24}} - single phone call insufficient<br>
</ref>
</ref>


'''Satisfaction of Accused'''<br>
; Satisfaction of Accused
Where an accused accesses the phone to speak to counsel and then afterwards states that he will not answer questions until he speaks with legal aid, the officer must make inquiry into whether they were satisfied with their advice or else they will be required to give access to counsel again.<ref>
Where an accused accesses the phone to speak to counsel and then afterwards states that he will not answer questions until he speaks with legal aid, the officer must make inquiry into whether they were satisfied with their advice or else they will be required to give access to counsel again.<ref>
R v Whitford [http://canlii.ca/t/2dd7h 1997 ABCA 85] (CanLII), (1997), 115 CCC (3d) 52 (Alta. C.A.)
{{CanLIIRP|Whitford|2dd7h|1997 ABCA 85 (CanLII)|115 CCC (3d) 52}}{{perABCA|Berger JA}}
</ref>
</ref>


'''Urgency or Danger'''<br>
; Urgency or Danger
A reasonable opportunity is not needed in circumstances where there is urgency or danger.<ref>
A reasonable opportunity is not needed in circumstances where there is urgency or danger.<ref>
R v Bartle, [http://canlii.ca/t/1frrg 1994 CanLII 64] (SCC), [1994] 3 SCR 173<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Bartle|1frrg|1994 CanLII 64 (SCC)|[1994] 3 SCR 173}}{{perSCC|Lamer CJ}}<br>
R v Sinclair, [http://canlii.ca/t/2cvjs 2010 SCC 35] (CanLII), [2010] 2 SCR 310 ("The existence of exigent or urgent circumstances that militate against any delay in the interrogation")<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Sinclair|2cvjs|2010 SCC 35 (CanLII)|[2010] 2 SCR 310}}{{perSCC-H|McLachlin CJ}} ("The existence of exigent or urgent circumstances that militate against any delay in the interrogation")<br>
R v Taylor, [2014] 2 SCR 495, [http://canlii.ca/t/g836k 2014 SCC 50] (CanLII), at para 31 (“a police officer’s implementational duties under s. 10(b) are necessarily limited in urgent or dangerous circumstances”)<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Taylor|g836k|2014 SCC 50 (CanLII)|[2014] 2 SCR 495}}{{perSCC-H|Abella J}}{{atL|g836k|31}} (“a police officer’s implementational duties under s. 10(b) are necessarily limited in urgent or dangerous circumstances”)<br>
</ref>
</ref>


The expiry of the two-hour evidentiary presumption under s. 258(1)(c)(ii) is not by itself an urgency to cancel the right to counsel.<ref>
The expiry of the two-hour evidentiary presumption under s. 258(1)(c)(ii) is not by itself an urgency to cancel the right to counsel.<ref>
R v Prosper, [1994] 3 SCR 236, [http://canlii.ca/t/1frrj 1994 CanLII 65] (SCC)<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Prosper|1frrj|1994 CanLII 65 (SCC)|[1994] 3 SCR 236}}{{plurality}}<br>
</ref>
</ref>


'''Facilitating Internet Access'''<br>
; Facilitating Internet Access
There has been some suggestion that the access right should include the ability to access the internet to find a lawyer.<ref>
There has been some suggestion that the access right should include the ability to access the internet to find a lawyer.<ref>
R v McKay, [http://canlii.ca/t/fvz84 2013 ABPC 13] (CanLII)
{{CanLIIRx|McKay|fvz84|2013 ABPC 13 (CanLII)}}{{perABPC|Lamoureux J}}
</ref>
</ref>


Line 116: Line 176:


==Contacting a Non-Lawyers/Third Parties==
==Contacting a Non-Lawyers/Third Parties==
Certain courts state there is no absolute right to an accused to contact family members such as wife, even if it were for the purpose of contacting a lawyer.<Ref>
Certain courts state there is no absolute right to an accused to contact family members such as wife, even if it were for the purpose of contacting a lawyer.<ref>
R v KWJ, [http://canlii.ca/t/fq4pl 2012 NWTCA 3] (CanLII) - no violation of 10(b) where police did not allow accused to contact wife during interrogation<br>
{{CanLIIRP|KWJ|fq4pl|2012 NWTCA 3 (CanLII)|252 CRR (2d) 141}}{{TheCourt}} - no violation of 10(b) where police did not allow accused to contact wife during interrogation<br>
R v Magalong, [http://canlii.ca/t/g1vjn 2013 BCCA 478] (CanLII) at para 33<br>
{{CanLIIRx|Magalong|g1vjn|2013 BCCA 478 (CanLII)}}{{perBCCA|Saunders JA}}{{atL|g1vjn|33}}<br>
c.f. R v Hughes, [http://canlii.ca/t/g6dfx 2014 ABQB 166] (CanLII) at paras 6 to 8<br>
cf. {{CanLIIRP|Hughes|g6dfx|2014 ABQB 166 (CanLII)|583 AR 192}}{{perABQB|Bast J}}{{atsL|g6dfx|6| to 8}}<br>
</ref> It is only where the accused informs the police that the purpose of the call is to assist in contacting a specific lawyer that the police should permit the phone call.<ref>  
</ref>  
R v Crossman, [http://canlii.ca/t/1d93j 1991 CanLII 471] (BC CA)<br>
It is only where the accused informs the police that the purpose of the call is to assist in contacting a specific lawyer that the police should permit the phone call.<ref>  
R v Underhill (1992), [http://canlii.ca/t/g13zx 1992 CanLII 7709] (ON SC), 10 O.R. (3d) 625 (Ct. J. (Gen. Div.)<br>
{{CanLIIRx|Crossman|1d93j|1991 CanLII 471 (BC CA)}}{{perBCCA|Lambert JA}}<br>
KWJ{{supra}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Underhill|g13zx|1992 CanLII 7709 (ONSC)|, 10 OR (3d) 625}}<br>
{{supra1|KWJ}}<br>
</ref>
</ref>
However, the phone call would not be private or privileged.<Ref>
However, the phone call would not be private or privileged.<ref>
KWJ{{supra}}<br>
{{supra1|KWJ}}<br>
</ref>
</ref>


There is also no violation for refusing an unexplained request to contact a friend in the police force.<ref>
There is also no violation for refusing an unexplained request to contact a friend in the police force.<ref>
R v Webber, [http://canlii.ca/t/5f61 2002 BCCA 692] (CanLII)
{{CanLIIRP|Webber|5f61|2002 BCCA 692 (CanLII)|180 BCAC 178}}{{perBCCA|Huddart JA}} (3:0)
</ref>
</ref>


Police should generally allow the detainee to contact a third-party such as spouse, parent, neighbour, friend, etc., if it is for the purpose of facilitating contact with legal counsel.<Ref>
Police should generally allow the detainee to contact a third-party such as spouse, parent, neighbour, friend, etc., if it is for the purpose of facilitating contact with legal counsel.<ref>
R v Menard, [http://canlii.ca/t/2cvxf 2010 BCSC 1416] (CanLII), <br>
{{CanLIIRP|Menard|2cvxf|2010 BCSC 1416 (CanLII)|11 BCLR (5th) 162}}{{perBCSC|Ehrcke J}} <br>
Tremblay{{supra}}<br>  
{{supra1|Tremblay}}<br>  
R v Kumarasamy, [2002] O.J. No. 303 (S.C.J.){{NOCANLII}}</ref>
{{CanLIIR-N|Kumarasamy|, [2002] OJ No 303 (SCJ)}}</ref>


The request to contact counsel through a third party must be reasonable.<ref>
The request to contact counsel through a third party must be reasonable.<ref>
Menard{{supra}} ("the request to contact a third party for assistance i retaining counsel must be a reasonable request")</ref> A request will be unreasonable where it may compromise the investigation, such as where the 3rd party could be an accomplice of some sort or may assist in destroying evidence or intimidating witnesses.<ref>
{{supra1|Menard}} ("the request to contact a third party for assistance in retaining counsel must be a reasonable request")</ref>
Menard{{supra}}</ref> It may also be unreasonable where the time to contact the third party is too long.<ref>
A request will be unreasonable where it may compromise the investigation, such as where the 3rd party could be an accomplice of some sort or may assist in destroying evidence or intimidating witnesses.<ref>
Menard{{supra}}</ref>
{{supra1|Menard}}</ref>  
It may also be unreasonable where the time to contact the third party is too long.<ref>
{{supra1|Menard}}</ref>


However, officer can be the intermediary in this contact and does not need to allow the accused to speak to the third-party directly, so long as the accused can properly exercise their right to contact counsel.
However, an officer can be the intermediary in this contact and does not need to allow the accused to speak to the third-party directly, so long as the accused can properly exercise their right to contact counsel.
{{reflist|2}}
{{reflist|2}}


==Diligence of the Detainee==
==Diligence of the Detainee==
The right to counsel is not an absolute right. The accused must be reasonably diligent to exercise it.<Ref>
The right to counsel is not an absolute right. The accused must be reasonably diligent to exercise it.<ref>
R v Bartle, [http://canlii.ca/t/1frrg 1994 CanLII 64] (SCC), [1994] 3 SCR 173</ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Bartle|1frrg|1994 CanLII 64 (SCC)|[1994] 3 SCR 173}}{{perSCC|Lamer CJ}}</ref>
Where the accused is not diligent, the duties of the police are suspended.<ref>
Where the accused is not diligent, the duties of the police are suspended.<ref>
R v Brydges, [http://canlii.ca/t/1ft0k 1990 CanLII 123] (SCC) at at para 14<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Brydges|1ft0k|1990 CanLII 123 (SCC)|[1990] 1 SCR 190}}{{perSCC|Lamer J}}{{atL|1ft0k|14}}<br>
</ref>
</ref>


If the first part of the implementational duty is satisfied, the judge will only then consider whether the detainee has been reasonably diligent in exercising the right. The onus is on the accused to establish reasonable diligence.<ref>
If the first part of the implementational duty is satisfied, the judge will only then consider whether the detainee has been reasonably diligent in exercising the right. The onus is on the accused to establish reasonable diligence.<ref>
R v Smith [http://canlii.ca/t/1ft3f 1989 CanLII 27] (SCC), [1989] 2 SCR 368, 50 CCC (3d) 308  (S.C.C.) at 315-16 and 323</ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Smith|1ft3f|1989 CanLII 27 (SCC)|[1989] 2 SCR 368, 50 CCC (3d) 308  (SCC)}}{{Plurality}} at 315-16 and 323</ref>


If the detainee failed to be reasonably diligent in exercising their right, the implementational duties do not arise or are suspended and so there cannot be a violation.<ref>
If the detainee failed to be reasonably diligent in exercising their right, the implementational duties do not arise or are suspended and so there cannot be a violation.<ref>
R v Tremblay [http://canlii.ca/t/1ftm3 1987 CanLII 28] (SCC), (1987), 37 CCC (3d) 565 (S.C.C.) at 568<br>  
{{CanLIIRP|Tremblay|1ftm3|1987 CanLII 28 (SCC)|37 CCC (3d) 565}}{{perSCC|Lamer J}} (7:0) at 568<br>  
R v Leclair [http://canlii.ca/t/1ft8b 1989 CanLII 134] (SCC), (1989), 46 CCC (3d) 129 (S.C.C.) at 135<br>  
{{CanLIIRP|Leclair|1ft8b|1989 CanLII 134 (SCC)|46 CCC (3d) 129 at 135<br> }}{{perSCC|Lamer J}} (4:2)
R v Black [http://canlii.ca/t/1ft50 1989 CanLII 75] (SCC), (1989), 50 CCC (3d) 1 (S.C.C.) at 13<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Black|1ft50|1989 CanLII 75 (SCC)|50 CCC (3d) 1}}{{perSCC|Wilson J}} (5:0) at 13<br>
Smith{{supra}} at 314<br>
{{supra1|Smith}} at 314<br>
Bartle{{supra}} at 301<br>
{{supra1|Bartle}} at 301<br>
R v Prosper [http://canlii.ca/t/1frrj 1994 CanLII 65] (SCC), [1994] 3 SCR 236 at 375-381 and 400-401 (cited to CCC)</ref> 
{{CanLIIRP|Prosper|1frrj|1994 CanLII 65 (SCC)|[1994] 3 SCR 236}}{{perSCC|Lamer CJ}} at 375-381 and 400-401 (cited to CCC)</ref> 


{{reflist|2}}
{{reflist|2}}
Line 170: Line 233:


==Police Comments to Detainee==
==Police Comments to Detainee==
The police have a right to try to persuade a person to speak to them.<ref>R v Hebert; R v Ekman</ref>
The police have a right to try to persuade a person to speak to them.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Hebert|1fst9|1990 CanLII 118 (SCC)| (1990)}}{{perSCC-H|McLachlin J}}<br>{{CanLIIRx|Ekman|1d2vz|1999 CanLII 6732 (BC SC)}}{{perBCSC|Stromberg-Stein J}}</ref>


'''Disparaging Counsel'''<br>
; Disparaging Counsel
It is not permissible for a police officer to make inappropriate comments regarding defence counsel that attack their integrity.<Ref>
It is not permissible for a police officer to make inappropriate comments regarding defence counsel that attack their integrity.<ref>
R v Burlingham [http://canlii.ca/t/1frk6 1995 CanLII 88] (SCC), [1995] 2 SCR 206<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Burlingham|1frk6|1995 CanLII 88 (SCC)|[1995] 2 SCR 206}}{{perSCC|Iacobucci J}}<br>
R v McKinnon, [http://canlii.ca/t/1l8wr 2005 ABQB 303] (CanLII)<br>
{{CanLIIRP|McKinnon|1l8wr|2005 ABQB 303 (CanLII)|383 AR 147}}{{perABQB|Sullivan J}}<br>
R v Timmons, [http://canlii.ca/t/5k1b 2002 NSSC 113] (CanLII), [2002] NSJ 209</ref> Where police do so, it has the effect of nullifying the reliance the advice given. To rebut this nullification, it would be necessary to have the detainee be given a further opportunity to contact a lawyer.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Timmons|5k1b|2002 NSSC 113 (CanLII)|[2002] NSJ 209}}{{perNSSC|Edwards J}}</ref>  
See Burlingham{{supra}}</ref>
Where police do so, it has the effect of nullifying the reliance the advice given. To rebut this nullification, it would be necessary to have the detainee be given a further opportunity to contact a lawyer.<ref>
See {{supra1|Burlingham}}</ref>


Inappropriate attacks on the integrity of counsel consist of comments are those that are "repeated disparaging comments made about defence counsel’s loyalty, commitment, availability, as well as the amount of his legal fees".<ref>
It is potentially inappropriate anytime police make "comments" on the legal advice given to detainees.<Ref>
Burlingham{{supra}} at para 4<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Mujku|2fdt0|2011 ONCA 64 (CanLII)|278 CCC (3d) 299}}{{TheCourtONCA}}{{atL|2fdt0|36}} ("the police tread on dangerous ground when they comment on the legal advice tendered to detainees.")<br>
</ref>
</ref>
Inappropriate attacks on the integrity of counsel consist of comments are those that are "repeated disparaging comments made about defence counsel’s loyalty, commitment, availability, as well as the amount of his legal fees."<ref>
{{supra1|Burlingham}}{{atL|1frk6|4}}<br>
</ref>
Making comments about duty counsel such as "they are not the ones sitting in jail" or "they're the ones at home taking a phone call from you", may be sufficient to amount to disparagement of counsel contrary to s. 10(b).<Ref>
{{CanLIIRx|Al-Adhami|jb600|2020 ONSC 6421 (CanLII)}}{{perONSC|Harris J}}
</ref>


However, not all negative comments will amount to a breach of s. 10(b).<ref>
However, not all negative comments will amount to a breach of s. 10(b).<ref>
e.g. see R v Mujku, 2011 ONCA 64 (CanLII)<Br>
e.g. see {{CanLIIRP|Mujku|2fdt0|2011 ONCA 64 (CanLII)|278 CCC (3d) 299}}{{perONCA|MacPherson JA}}<br>
</ref>
</ref>


Police should not attempt to say anything that may cause the accused to be "talked out" or otherwise persuaded not to call legal aid duty counsel.<ref>
Police should not attempt to say anything that may cause the accused to be "talked out" or otherwise persuaded not to call legal aid duty counsel.<ref>
R v Balgobin, [http://canlii.ca/t/fkjhh 2011 ONCJ 108] (CanLII) - officer stated it could take anywhere from 2 minutes to two hours for duty counsel to call back.
{{CanLIIRx|Balgobin|fkjhh|2011 ONCJ 108 (CanLII)}}{{perONCJ|Libman J}} - officer stated it could take anywhere from 2 minutes to two hours for duty counsel to call back.
</ref>
</ref>


Line 194: Line 267:


==Delay in Contacting Counsel==
==Delay in Contacting Counsel==
The degree of delay permitted is a matter of context.<Ref>R v Smith, [http://canlii.ca/t/1npjx 1986 CanLII 103] (MB CA)</ref>
Urgent circumstances may warrant delay in facilitating access to counsel.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Manninen|1ftmx|1987 CanLII 67 (SCC)|[1987] 1 SCR 1233}}{{perSCC|Lamer J}}{{atL|1ftmx|22}} ("...there may be circumstances in which it is particularly urgent that the police continue with an investigation before it is possible to facilitate a detainee's communication with counsel.")
</ref>
 
The degree of delay permitted is a matter of context.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Smith|1npjx|1986 CanLII 103 (MB CA)|25 CCC (3d) 361}}{{perMBCA|Huband JA}}</ref>


The police wait of 10 minutes after a second failed attempt to contact counsel to conduct breath test breached s. 10(b) rights.<Ref>R v Samatar, [http://canlii.ca/t/fnq1x 2011 ONCJ 520] (CanLII)</ref>
The police wait of 10 minutes after a second failed attempt to contact counsel to conduct breath test breached s. 10(b) rights.<ref>
{{CanLIIRx|Samatar|fnq1x|2011 ONCJ 520 (CanLII)}}{{perONCJ|Knazan J}}</ref>


'''Examples'''<br>
; Examples
Evidence obtained from a motorist’s involvement in screening tests, without being given their right to counsel, should be excluded from evidence incriminating the driver. <Ref>R v Orbanski [http://canlii.ca/t/1l0b0 2005 SCC 37] (CanLII)</ref>
Evidence obtained from a motorist’s involvement in screening tests, without being given their right to counsel, should be excluded from evidence incriminating the driver. <ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Orbanski|1l0b0|2005 SCC 37 (CanLII)|[2005] 2 SCR 3}}{{perSCC|Charron J}}</ref>


{{Reflist|2}}
{{Reflist|2}}
==Privacy While in Contact with Lawyer==
==Privacy While in Contact with Lawyer==
The right to counsel includes the corollary right to consult in private.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Young|1lk90|1987 CanLII 108 (NB CA)|, 81 NBR (2d) 233 (N.B. C.A.)}}{{perNBCA|Stratton CJ}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|LePage|1nx2h|1986 CanLII 119 (NSCA)|32 CCC (3d) 171}}{{perNSCA|Jones JA}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|McKane|g9jh5|1987 CanLII 6794|, 35 CCC (3d) 481}}{{perONCA-H|Martin JA}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Playford|1npn5|1987 CanLII 125 (ON CA)|40 CCC (3d) 142}}{{perONCA|Goodman JA}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|O’Donnell|1gthg|2004 NBCA 26 (CanLII)|185 CCC (3d) 367}}{{perNBCA|Robertson JA}}{{atL|1gthg|4}} ("...the right to retain and instruct counsel, under s. 10(b) of the Charter, includes a corollary right to consult in private. Without the requisite degree of privacy, the constitutional right to counsel becomes illusory. ...")<br>
</ref>
This means that at a "bare minimum" the detainee must be able to consult with counsel without the conversation being overheard and the detainee should not be required to request privacy for the purpose of making the phone call.<ref>
{{ibid1|O'Donnell}}{{atL|1gthg|4}} ("While the amount of privacy need not be great, at a minimum, an accused must be able to converse with his or her lawyer without the conversation being overheard. Moreover, those who exercise their right to counsel are not required to request privacy or greater privacy than what the police are willing to provide. ")<br>
</ref>
A violation will exist where the accused reasonably believes that the police may be overhearing the conversation with counsel regardless of whether police are actually listening.<ref>
A violation will exist where the accused reasonably believes that the police may be overhearing the conversation with counsel regardless of whether police are actually listening.<ref>
R v Banks, [http://canlii.ca/t/27402 2009 ONCJ 604] (CanLII)</ref>
{{CanLIIRx|Banks|27402|2009 ONCJ 604 (CanLII)}}{{perONCJ|Perkins-McVey J}}</ref>
 
There is no obligation on the part of the detainee to request privacy in making their phone call.<ref>
{{supra1|O'Donnell}}{{atL|1gthg|4}}<br>
</ref>


The informational component of the right to counsel does not require the police to inform the detainee of the privacy right as it would be expected to be self-evident.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Parrill|26z7m|1998 CanLII 18014 (NL CA)|58 CRR (2d) 56}}{{perNLCA|Wells JA}}
</ref>
But if the detainee is exhibiting a belief that the call to counsel would not be private, the police have an obligation to inform the detainee of the right to privacy.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Jackson|g138c|1993 CanLII 8667 (ON CA)|25 CR (4th) 265 (ONCA)}}{{perONCA|Goodman JA}}
</ref>
{{reflist|2}}
{{reflist|2}}


==Quality of Advice==
==Quality of Advice==
The "police have no obligation under s. 10(b) to monitor the quality of the legal advice received by a detainee from duty counsel".<ref>  
The "police have no obligation under s. 10(b) to monitor the quality of the legal advice received by a detainee from duty counsel."<ref>  
R v Beierl, [http://canlii.ca/t/2d19r 2010 ONCA 697] (CanLII)<br>
{{CanLIIRx|Beierl|2d19r|2010 ONCA 697 (CanLII)}}{{TheCourtONCA}}<br>
</ref>
</ref>


It is also not proper to speculate on how legal advice would have changed the ultimate decisions on the part of the accused.<Ref>
It is also not proper to speculate on how legal advice would have changed the ultimate decisions on the part of the accused.<ref>
R v Black, [1989] 2 SCR 138, [http://canlii.ca/t/1ft50 1989 CanLII 75] (SCC) at para 24 (" It is improper for a court to speculate about the type of legal advice which would have been given had the accused actually succeeded in contacting counsel after the charge was changed.")<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Black|1ft50|1989 CanLII 75 (SCC)|[1989] 2 SCR 138}}{{perSCC|Wilson J}}{{atL|1ft50|24}} (" It is improper for a court to speculate about the type of legal advice which would have been given had the accused actually succeeded in contacting counsel after the charge was changed.")<br>
</ref>
</ref>
{{reflist|2}}
{{reflist|2}}


==Fulfillment of Obligation==
==Fulfillment of Obligation==
The advice received in privileged and so police do not need to inquire about the adequacy of the legal advice the detainee received.<Ref>R v Willier, [http://canlii.ca/t/2cvjv 2010 SCC 37] (CanLII), [2010] 2 SCR 429</ref> If there is any issue with the advice given that is for the detainee to raise.
The advice received in privileged and so police do not need to inquire about the adequacy of the legal advice the detainee received.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Willier|2cvjv|2010 SCC 37 (CanLII)|[2010] 2 SCR 429}}{{perSCC-H|McLachlin CJ and Charron J}}</ref>  
If there is any issue with the advice given that is for the detainee to raise.


If the detainee is unsuccessful in reaching a lawyer, for example, if he receives a busy signal, no answer, disconnected phone, recorded message, or someone other than the lawyer, it is for the accused to inform the police about so that they can fulfill their duty. It is not for the police to "play twenty questions".<Ref>R v Top [http://canlii.ca/t/2dmvz 1989 ABCA 98] (CanLII), (1989), 48 CCC (3d) 493 at p. 497</ref>
If the detainee is unsuccessful in reaching a lawyer, for example, if he receives a busy signal, no answer, disconnected phone, recorded message, or someone other than the lawyer, it is for the accused to inform the police about so that they can fulfill their duty. It is not for the police to "play twenty questions."<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Top|2dmvz|1989 ABCA 98 (CanLII)|48 CCC (3d) 493}}{{perABCA|Cote JA}}{{atp|497}}</ref>


The judge must take an objective view of the circumstances to determine if the implementational component was fulfilled.<ref>
The judge must take an objective view of the circumstances to determine if the implementational component was fulfilled.<ref>
Top<Br>
{{ibid1|Top}}<br>
</ref>
</ref>
This must take into account the "totality of the circumstances".<ref>
This must take into account the "totality of the circumstances."<ref>
R v Adamiak, [http://canlii.ca/t/fxrzm 2013 ABCA 199] (CanLII), at para 27 (“...whether his section 10(b) rights were breached required an examination of the totality of the circumstances ...”)<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Adamiak|fxrzm|2013 ABCA 199 (CanLII)|553 AR 178}}{{TheCourtABCA}}{{atL|fxrzm|27}} (“...whether his section 10(b) rights were breached required an examination of the totality of the circumstances ...”)<br>
</ref>
</ref>


The police are entitled to act on what the accused tells them about the access to counsel. The are not expected to be "mind-readers".<ref>
The police are entitled to act on what the accused tells them about the access to counsel. The are not expected to be "mind-readers."<ref>
Top<br>
{{ibid1|Top}}<br>
R v Liew, [http://canlii.ca/t/5srn 1998 ABCA 98] (CanLII), (1998) 212 AR 381 at para 18 (“He did not tell them of his difficulty. The police are not mind-readers and, as this Court has said in the past, they are not there to play "Twenty Questions".”)
{{CanLIIRP|Liew|5srn|1998 ABCA 98 (CanLII)|(1998) 212 AR 381}}{{perABCA|Veit J}}{{atL|5srn|18}} (“He did not tell them of his difficulty. The police are not mind-readers and, as this Court has said in the past, they are not there to play "Twenty Questions".”)
</ref>
</ref>


The police may be able to infer that the accused is ready to move on to the next step where he knocks on the door to retrieve the officer.<ref>
The police may be able to infer that the accused is ready to move on to the next step where he knocks on the door to retrieve the officer.<ref>
R v Jones, [http://canlii.ca/t/1ls3m 2005 ABCA 289] (CanLII), at para 11 (“On the only evidence, the appellant knocked on the door because he had terminated his efforts and was ready to proceed to the next step. The police officer reasonably concluded from the appellant's actions that the appellant had terminated his efforts to try to call his own lawyer.”) </ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Jones|1ls3m|2005 ABCA 289 (CanLII)|201 CCC (3d) 268}}{{TheCourtABCA}} (2:1){{atL|1ls3m|11}} (“On the only evidence, the appellant knocked on the door because he had terminated his efforts and was ready to proceed to the next step. The police officer reasonably concluded from the appellant's actions that the appellant had terminated his efforts to try to call his own lawyer.”) </ref>


{{reflist|2}}
{{reflist|2}}
==Additional Contact with Counsel==
* [[Right to Additional Opportunities to Consult with Counsel]]
==See Also==
* [[Special Issues with Right to Counsel]]

Latest revision as of 07:07, 23 July 2024

This page was last substantively updated or reviewed May 2021. (Rev. # 95761)

General Principles

See also: Informational Component to Right to Counsel

The implementation component is engaged once the detainee indicates a desire to exercise the right to counsel.[1]

The implementation component involves two aspects: [2]

  1. the officer must provide the detainee with reasonable opportunity to exercise the right to retain counsel without delay except in urgent or dangerous circumstances.[3]
  2. refrain from attempting to elicit evidence from the detainee until he has had a reasonable opportunity to retain and instruct counsel except in urgent or dangerous circumstances.[4]

Consideration of the elements of the implementation component, particularly the "reasonableness", requires the court to consider the "totality of circumstances."[5] There should be no clear line drawn between "reasonable opportunity" and "reasonable diligence."[6]

If the implementational component was not satisfied then there is a breach of the Charter right.[7]

The right to counsel does not include a right to use of a specific phone that is available. It also does not impose an obligation upon police to give access to their own cell phones or those of others in order to facilitate access to counsel.[8]

Application of Implementation Component

The implementation component does not arise until there is an expressed desire to exercise those rights.[9]

Once the accused has been informed of his rights, he has an obligation to pursue them. [10]

Engagement of the right does not require the detainee to specifically ask for access to a phone.[11]

The right to be informed of the right to counsel does not go so far as to guarantee the appreciation of all the information given.[12]

Burden of Proof

The burden is upon the accused to establish on a balance of probabilities that the accused was denied his right to counsel.[13] However, where the Crown is relying upon waiver of the right, it is the Crown's burden to prove such waiver.[14]

Form of Access to Counsel

The accused is not entitled to counsel to be present in person during an interrogation.[15]

There is nothing preventing the accused from having counsel present with the consent of the police.[16]

Choice of Counsel

The right to counsel includes the right to counsel of choice and that the counsel represents the accused throughout. This right is limited to counsel who are competent to undertake the retainer; willing to act; available to represent the accused within a reasonable time; and free of any conflicts.[17]

If the chosen lawyer is not available within a reasonable amount of time, the detainee is expected to call another lawyer or else the police duty to hold off questioning.[18] What amount to reasonable time depends on the circumstances.[19]

Mental State of Detainee

The detainee must possess an operating mind for the right to be properly exercised.[20]

Physical State of Detainee

Where an accused is brought to hospital due to injuries and detained by police, they still have an obligation to provide access to counsel.[21] The burden is upon the police to prove that there are any "logical or medical barriers" to get the accused in contact with a lawyer.[22]

The police should in all cases make inquiries into the ability of the hospital to facilitate access and the accused health to satisfy himself whether there are barriers to access.[23]

  1. ↑ R v Luong, 2000 ABCA 301 (CanLII), 149 CCC (3d) 571, per Berger JA, at para 12
  2. ↑ R v Ross, 1989 CanLII 134 (SCC), [1989] 1 SCR 3, per Lamer J
  3. ↑ R v Bartle, 1994 CanLII 64 (SCC), 92 CCC (3d) 289, per Lamer CJ at 301
  4. ↑ Bartle, supra, at p. 301
  5. ↑ R v Brown, 2009 NBCA 27 (CanLII), 889 APR 1, per Richard JA , at para 23
  6. ↑ Brown, ibid.
  7. ↑ Luong, supra, at para 12
  8. ↑ R v Taylor, 2014 SCC 50 (CanLII), [2014] 2 SCR 495, per Abella J
  9. ↑ R v Baig, 1987 CanLII 40 (SCC), [1987] 2 SCR 537, per curiam, at para 6
    Bartle, supra, at pp. 151-192
  10. ↑ R v Tremblay, 1987 CanLII 28 (SCC), [1987] 2 SCR 435, per Lamer J
    R v McCrimmon, 2010 SCC 36 (CanLII), [2010] 2 SCR 402, per McLachlin CJ and Charron J, at para 18
    R v Willier, 2010 SCC 37 (CanLII), [2010] 2 SCR 429, per McLachlin CJ and Charron J, at para 33
  11. ↑ R v Manninen, 1987 CanLII 67 (SCC), [1987] 1 SCR 1233, per Lamer J
  12. ↑ R v Kennedy, 1995 CanLII 9863 (NL CA), [1995] NJ No 340, 135 Nfld. & PEIR 271 (Nfld. C.A.), per Marshall JA at 28 to 31
  13. ↑ R v Baig, 1987 CanLII 40 (SCC), [1987] 2 SCR 537, per curiam
  14. ↑ R v Prosper, 1994 CanLII 65 (SCC), [1994] 3 SCR 236, per Lamer CJ
  15. ↑ R v Sinclair, 2010 SCC 35 (CanLII), [2010] 2 SCR 310, per MacLachlin CJ and Charron J
    McCrimmon, supra
  16. ↑ Sinclair, supra
  17. ↑ R v McCallen, 1999 CanLII 3685 (ON CA), 131 CCC 518, per C'Connor JA
  18. ↑ Willier, supra
    R v LeClair, 1989 CanLII 134 (SCC), [1989] 1 SCR 3, per Lamer J
  19. ↑ R v Whitford, 1997 ABCA 85 (CanLII), (1997) 196 AR 97 (CA), per Berger JA
  20. ↑ R v Whittle, 1994 CanLII 55 (SCC), [1994] 2 SCR 914, per Sopinka J
  21. ↑ R v Taylor, 2014 SCC 50 (CanLII), [2014] 2 SCR 495, per Abella J
  22. ↑ Taylor, ibid.
  23. ↑ Taylor, ibid.

Suspension of Implementational Component

There are limited specific circumstances where the implementational component may be suspended.[1] Those situations include safety of police or the public.[2] It can also include execution of a search warrant[3] or securing evidence.[4] The officer must have some reasonable basis to believe that suspension is necessary to achieve one of the specified goals.[5]

  1. ↑ R v Rover, 2018 ONCA 745 (CanLII)
    R v Keshavarz, 2022 ONCA 312 (CanLII), at para 71
  2. ↑ Rover, supra, at para 26
    Suberu, at para. 42(complete citation pending)
    Keshavarz, supra at para 71 R v Griffith, 2021 ONCA 302 (CanLII), 408 CCC (3d) 244, per Jamal JA, at para 38
  3. ↑ Keshavarz, supra at para 71
  4. ↑ Keshavarz, supra at para 73
  5. ↑ Keshavarz, supra at para 74
    Rover, supra, at para 27 (suspension must be founded "on some reasonable basis, that police or public safety, or the need to preserve evidence, justifies some delay in granting access to counsel")

Duty to Holding Off on Questioning

Once the detainee indicates they wish to speak to counsel, the police have an obligation to cease all question until access to counsel has been facilitated.[1]


The obligation to hold off on questioning does not include questions that are not "about the offence", "to gather evidence", or for "investigative purpose[s]". [2] Questions that are to "assist the accused to exercise his rights, preserve his property, provide care for his family, or protect his health and safety or the health and safety of others" are valid at any time.[3]

A proactive request for counsel before the completion of the informational script may police to change their script to not include anything that may seek to elicit evidence, such as the question “do you wish to say anything?”[4]

  1. ↑ R v Manninen, 1983 CanLII 1726 (ON CA), 37 CR (3d) 162 aff'd [1987] 1 SCR 1233, 1987 CanLII 67 (SCC), per Lamer J
    R v Prosper, 1994 CanLII 65 (SCC), [1994] 3 SCR 236, per Lamer CJ, at p. 269 (SCR)
  2. ↑ R v Sinclair, 2003 BCSC 2040 (CanLII), [2003] BCJ No 3258, per Powers J, aff’d 2008 BCCA 127 (CanLII), 169 CRR (2d) 232, per Frankel JA, aff’d 2010 SCC 35 (CanLII), 259 CCC (3d) 443, per McLachlin CJ and Charron J
    R v Dupe, 2010 ONSC 6594 (CanLII), OJ No 5757, per Dambrot J, at para 24 (must hold off on "questioning intended to elicit evidence, sometimes referred to as investigative questioning")
  3. ↑ Dupe, ibid., at para 24
  4. ↑ R v GTD, 2018 SCC 7 (CanLII), [2018] 1 SCR 220 per Brown J at para 2

Reasonable Opportunity to Access Counsel

The police must give the accused a reasonable opportunity to contact counsel on arrest in order to foster fair his fair treatment.[1]

The police obligation does not extend to arranging for lawyers to be available for free advice at any time or place.[2]

Failed Attempts to Contact Counsel

Where the accused fails to reach the lawyer of choice, leaves a voicemail and expects to get a call back but does not tell the officer, and then refuses other counsel, he cannot claim that he was not given reasonable access to counsel.[3]

Facilitating a single failed attempt to call counsel of choice of an accused may or may not be sufficient.[4]

Satisfaction of Accused

Where an accused accesses the phone to speak to counsel and then afterwards states that he will not answer questions until he speaks with legal aid, the officer must make inquiry into whether they were satisfied with their advice or else they will be required to give access to counsel again.[5]

Urgency or Danger

A reasonable opportunity is not needed in circumstances where there is urgency or danger.[6]

The expiry of the two-hour evidentiary presumption under s. 258(1)(c)(ii) is not by itself an urgency to cancel the right to counsel.[7]

Facilitating Internet Access

There has been some suggestion that the access right should include the ability to access the internet to find a lawyer.[8]

  1. ↑ R v Brydges, 1990 CanLII 123 (SCC), 53 CCC (3d) 330, per Lamer J
  2. ↑ R v Cobham (1993), 80 CCC (3d) 449(*no CanLII links) reversed on other grounds at 1994 CanLII 69 (SCC), [1994] 3 SCR 360
  3. ↑ R v Top, 1989 ABCA 98 (CanLII), 48 CCC (3d) 493, per Cote JA
  4. ↑ R v Richfield, 2003 CanLII 52164 (ON CA), [2003] OJ No 3230, per Weiler JA, at paras 11 to 12 - left voice mail with counsel of choice, waited an hour. Refused to accept duty counsel. Police found diligent. cf. R v Millar, 2008 ONCJ 685 (CanLII), per Reinhardt J, at paras 23 to 24 - single phone call insufficient
  5. ↑ R v Whitford, 1997 ABCA 85 (CanLII), 115 CCC (3d) 52, per Berger JA
  6. ↑ R v Bartle, 1994 CanLII 64 (SCC), [1994] 3 SCR 173, per Lamer CJ
    R v Sinclair, 2010 SCC 35 (CanLII), [2010] 2 SCR 310, per McLachlin CJ ("The existence of exigent or urgent circumstances that militate against any delay in the interrogation")
    R v Taylor, 2014 SCC 50 (CanLII), [2014] 2 SCR 495, per Abella J, at para 31 (“a police officer’s implementational duties under s. 10(b) are necessarily limited in urgent or dangerous circumstances”)
  7. ↑ R v Prosper, 1994 CanLII 65 (SCC), [1994] 3 SCR 236
  8. ↑ R v McKay, 2013 ABPC 13 (CanLII), per Lamoureux J

Contacting a Non-Lawyers/Third Parties

Certain courts state there is no absolute right to an accused to contact family members such as wife, even if it were for the purpose of contacting a lawyer.[1] It is only where the accused informs the police that the purpose of the call is to assist in contacting a specific lawyer that the police should permit the phone call.[2] However, the phone call would not be private or privileged.[3]

There is also no violation for refusing an unexplained request to contact a friend in the police force.[4]

Police should generally allow the detainee to contact a third-party such as spouse, parent, neighbour, friend, etc., if it is for the purpose of facilitating contact with legal counsel.[5]

The request to contact counsel through a third party must be reasonable.[6] A request will be unreasonable where it may compromise the investigation, such as where the 3rd party could be an accomplice of some sort or may assist in destroying evidence or intimidating witnesses.[7] It may also be unreasonable where the time to contact the third party is too long.[8]

However, an officer can be the intermediary in this contact and does not need to allow the accused to speak to the third-party directly, so long as the accused can properly exercise their right to contact counsel.

  1. ↑ R v KWJ, 2012 NWTCA 3 (CanLII), 252 CRR (2d) 141, per curiam - no violation of 10(b) where police did not allow accused to contact wife during interrogation
    R v Magalong, 2013 BCCA 478 (CanLII), per Saunders JA, at para 33
    cf. R v Hughes, 2014 ABQB 166 (CanLII), 583 AR 192, per Bast J, at paras 6 to 8
  2. ↑ R v Crossman, 1991 CanLII 471 (BC CA), per Lambert JA
    R v Underhill, 1992 CanLII 7709 (ONSC), , 10 OR (3d) 625
    KWJ, supra
  3. ↑ KWJ, supra
  4. ↑ R v Webber, 2002 BCCA 692 (CanLII), 180 BCAC 178, per Huddart JA (3:0)
  5. ↑ R v Menard, 2010 BCSC 1416 (CanLII), 11 BCLR (5th) 162, per Ehrcke J
    Tremblay, supra
    R v Kumarasamy, [2002] OJ No 303 (SCJ)(*no CanLII links)
  6. ↑ Menard, supra ("the request to contact a third party for assistance in retaining counsel must be a reasonable request")
  7. ↑ Menard, supra
  8. ↑ Menard, supra

Diligence of the Detainee

The right to counsel is not an absolute right. The accused must be reasonably diligent to exercise it.[1] Where the accused is not diligent, the duties of the police are suspended.[2]

If the first part of the implementational duty is satisfied, the judge will only then consider whether the detainee has been reasonably diligent in exercising the right. The onus is on the accused to establish reasonable diligence.[3]

If the detainee failed to be reasonably diligent in exercising their right, the implementational duties do not arise or are suspended and so there cannot be a violation.[4] 

  1. ↑ R v Bartle, 1994 CanLII 64 (SCC), [1994] 3 SCR 173, per Lamer CJ
  2. ↑ R v Brydges, 1990 CanLII 123 (SCC), [1990] 1 SCR 190, per Lamer J, at para 14
  3. ↑ R v Smith, 1989 CanLII 27 (SCC), [1989] 2 SCR 368, 50 CCC (3d) 308  (SCC) at 315-16 and 323
  4. ↑ R v Tremblay, 1987 CanLII 28 (SCC), 37 CCC (3d) 565, per Lamer J (7:0) at 568
    R v Leclair, 1989 CanLII 134 (SCC), 46 CCC (3d) 129 at 135
    , per Lamer J (4:2) R v Black, 1989 CanLII 75 (SCC), 50 CCC (3d) 1, per Wilson J (5:0) at 13
    Smith, supra at 314
    Bartle, supra at 301
    R v Prosper, 1994 CanLII 65 (SCC), [1994] 3 SCR 236, per Lamer CJ at 375-381 and 400-401 (cited to CCC)

Choice of Counsel

See also: Right to Choice of Counsel

Police Comments to Detainee

The police have a right to try to persuade a person to speak to them.[1]

Disparaging Counsel

It is not permissible for a police officer to make inappropriate comments regarding defence counsel that attack their integrity.[2] Where police do so, it has the effect of nullifying the reliance the advice given. To rebut this nullification, it would be necessary to have the detainee be given a further opportunity to contact a lawyer.[3]

It is potentially inappropriate anytime police make "comments" on the legal advice given to detainees.[4]

Inappropriate attacks on the integrity of counsel consist of comments are those that are "repeated disparaging comments made about defence counsel’s loyalty, commitment, availability, as well as the amount of his legal fees."[5]

Making comments about duty counsel such as "they are not the ones sitting in jail" or "they're the ones at home taking a phone call from you", may be sufficient to amount to disparagement of counsel contrary to s. 10(b).[6]

However, not all negative comments will amount to a breach of s. 10(b).[7]

Police should not attempt to say anything that may cause the accused to be "talked out" or otherwise persuaded not to call legal aid duty counsel.[8]

  1. ↑ R v Hebert, 1990 CanLII 118 (SCC), (1990), per McLachlin J
    R v Ekman, 1999 CanLII 6732 (BC SC), per Stromberg-Stein J
  2. ↑ R v Burlingham, 1995 CanLII 88 (SCC), [1995] 2 SCR 206, per Iacobucci J
    R v McKinnon, 2005 ABQB 303 (CanLII), 383 AR 147, per Sullivan J
    R v Timmons, 2002 NSSC 113 (CanLII), [2002] NSJ 209, per Edwards J
  3. ↑ See Burlingham, supra
  4. ↑ R v Mujku, 2011 ONCA 64 (CanLII), 278 CCC (3d) 299, per curiam, at para 36 ("the police tread on dangerous ground when they comment on the legal advice tendered to detainees.")
  5. ↑ Burlingham, supra, at para 4
  6. ↑ R v Al-Adhami, 2020 ONSC 6421 (CanLII), per Harris J
  7. ↑ e.g. see R v Mujku, 2011 ONCA 64 (CanLII), 278 CCC (3d) 299, per MacPherson JA
  8. ↑ R v Balgobin, 2011 ONCJ 108 (CanLII), per Libman J - officer stated it could take anywhere from 2 minutes to two hours for duty counsel to call back.

Delay in Contacting Counsel

Urgent circumstances may warrant delay in facilitating access to counsel.[1]

The degree of delay permitted is a matter of context.[2]

The police wait of 10 minutes after a second failed attempt to contact counsel to conduct breath test breached s. 10(b) rights.[3]

Examples

Evidence obtained from a motorist’s involvement in screening tests, without being given their right to counsel, should be excluded from evidence incriminating the driver. [4]

  1. ↑ R v Manninen, 1987 CanLII 67 (SCC), [1987] 1 SCR 1233, per Lamer J, at para 22 ("...there may be circumstances in which it is particularly urgent that the police continue with an investigation before it is possible to facilitate a detainee's communication with counsel.")
  2. ↑ R v Smith, 1986 CanLII 103 (MB CA), 25 CCC (3d) 361, per Huband JA
  3. ↑ R v Samatar, 2011 ONCJ 520 (CanLII), per Knazan J
  4. ↑ R v Orbanski, 2005 SCC 37 (CanLII), [2005] 2 SCR 3, per Charron J

Privacy While in Contact with Lawyer

The right to counsel includes the corollary right to consult in private.[1] This means that at a "bare minimum" the detainee must be able to consult with counsel without the conversation being overheard and the detainee should not be required to request privacy for the purpose of making the phone call.[2]

A violation will exist where the accused reasonably believes that the police may be overhearing the conversation with counsel regardless of whether police are actually listening.[3]

There is no obligation on the part of the detainee to request privacy in making their phone call.[4]

The informational component of the right to counsel does not require the police to inform the detainee of the privacy right as it would be expected to be self-evident.[5] But if the detainee is exhibiting a belief that the call to counsel would not be private, the police have an obligation to inform the detainee of the right to privacy.[6]

  1. ↑ R v Young, 1987 CanLII 108 (NB CA), , 81 NBR (2d) 233 (N.B. C.A.), per Stratton CJ
    R v LePage, 1986 CanLII 119 (NSCA), 32 CCC (3d) 171, per Jones JA
    R v McKane, 1987 CanLII 6794, , 35 CCC (3d) 481, per Martin JA
    R v Playford, 1987 CanLII 125 (ON CA), 40 CCC (3d) 142, per Goodman JA
    R v O’Donnell, 2004 NBCA 26 (CanLII), 185 CCC (3d) 367, per Robertson JA, at para 4 ("...the right to retain and instruct counsel, under s. 10(b) of the Charter, includes a corollary right to consult in private. Without the requisite degree of privacy, the constitutional right to counsel becomes illusory. ...")
  2. ↑ O'Donnell, ibid., at para 4 ("While the amount of privacy need not be great, at a minimum, an accused must be able to converse with his or her lawyer without the conversation being overheard. Moreover, those who exercise their right to counsel are not required to request privacy or greater privacy than what the police are willing to provide. ")
  3. ↑ R v Banks, 2009 ONCJ 604 (CanLII), per Perkins-McVey J
  4. ↑ O'Donnell, supra, at para 4
  5. ↑ R v Parrill, 1998 CanLII 18014 (NL CA), 58 CRR (2d) 56, per Wells JA
  6. ↑ R v Jackson, 1993 CanLII 8667 (ON CA), 25 CR (4th) 265 (ONCA), per Goodman JA

Quality of Advice

The "police have no obligation under s. 10(b) to monitor the quality of the legal advice received by a detainee from duty counsel."[1]

It is also not proper to speculate on how legal advice would have changed the ultimate decisions on the part of the accused.[2]

  1. ↑ R v Beierl, 2010 ONCA 697 (CanLII), per curiam
  2. ↑ R v Black, 1989 CanLII 75 (SCC), [1989] 2 SCR 138, per Wilson J, at para 24 (" It is improper for a court to speculate about the type of legal advice which would have been given had the accused actually succeeded in contacting counsel after the charge was changed.")

Fulfillment of Obligation

The advice received in privileged and so police do not need to inquire about the adequacy of the legal advice the detainee received.[1] If there is any issue with the advice given that is for the detainee to raise.

If the detainee is unsuccessful in reaching a lawyer, for example, if he receives a busy signal, no answer, disconnected phone, recorded message, or someone other than the lawyer, it is for the accused to inform the police about so that they can fulfill their duty. It is not for the police to "play twenty questions."[2]

The judge must take an objective view of the circumstances to determine if the implementational component was fulfilled.[3] This must take into account the "totality of the circumstances."[4]

The police are entitled to act on what the accused tells them about the access to counsel. The are not expected to be "mind-readers."[5]

The police may be able to infer that the accused is ready to move on to the next step where he knocks on the door to retrieve the officer.[6]

  1. ↑ R v Willier, 2010 SCC 37 (CanLII), [2010] 2 SCR 429, per McLachlin CJ and Charron J
  2. ↑ R v Top, 1989 ABCA 98 (CanLII), 48 CCC (3d) 493, per Cote JA, at p. 497
  3. ↑ Top, ibid.
  4. ↑ R v Adamiak, 2013 ABCA 199 (CanLII), 553 AR 178, per curiam, at para 27 (“...whether his section 10(b) rights were breached required an examination of the totality of the circumstances ...”)
  5. ↑ Top, ibid.
    R v Liew, 1998 ABCA 98 (CanLII), (1998) 212 AR 381, per Veit J, at para 18 (“He did not tell them of his difficulty. The police are not mind-readers and, as this Court has said in the past, they are not there to play "Twenty Questions".”)
  6. ↑ R v Jones, 2005 ABCA 289 (CanLII), 201 CCC (3d) 268, per curiam (2:1), at para 11 (“On the only evidence, the appellant knocked on the door because he had terminated his efforts and was ready to proceed to the next step. The police officer reasonably concluded from the appellant's actions that the appellant had terminated his efforts to try to call his own lawyer.”)

Additional Contact with Counsel

See Also

Retrieved from "https://criminalnotebook.ca/index.php?title=Implementation_Component_to_Right_to_Counsel&oldid=95761"