The Full Court Press: Weekend caselaw roundup

Welcome to the Full Court Press' new, weekend caselaw roundup. This blog will attempt to provide a brief overview of notable cases that come out over the course of the week. If you have any recommendations feel free to send them our way via twitter at @fullcourtPRS. 

Given that this is our first post, we'll step out of bounds a little and go beyond the past week. 

R. v. Walia, 2018 ONCA 197

•  Alan D. Gold and Laura Metcalfe for the appellant
• Christopher Webb for the respondent
• As Ted Royle's firm tweeted (below), the ONCA provides a nice, concise judgement on inconsistent verdicts and provides and interesting direction to Crowns proceeding on duplicative counts:
  • "Before leaving this matter, we observe that we can discern no obvious reason why the Crown proceeded with the less serious assault with a weapon charge in addition to the aggravated assault charge. Outcomes such as these could be avoided, and trials simplified and shortened, if the practice of proceeding with duplicative counts was avoided."  (para 19)

​R. v. G.T.D., 2018 SCC 7

• The Majority of the SCC held that by asking "Do you want to say anything?" at end of standard caution, after accused had invoked his right to counsel, violated police's duty to "hold off" from attempting to elicit incriminatory evidence until accused had reasonable opportunity to reach counsel, because it elicited statement from accused.
•  Curiously, the new Chief Justice would have dismissed the appeal on the basis that the statement should not have been excluded under s. 24(2):
  • "The Chief Justice concludes that the fact that the question was accompanied by clear information about G.T.D.'s choice to speak to the police attenuated the impact of the state conduct on the Charter-protected interests of the accused to the point where, balanced with the seriousness of the breach and society's interest in adjudication on the merits, admission of the statement would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute."
• Thus, this dubious interpretation of 24(2) by the Chief raises questions and concerns about the new Chief Justice's approach in the post-Mclachlin era at the SCC.​

R. v. Vitalis, 2018 ONCJ 43

• Finally, an OCJ decision by Justice O'Marra (Counsel for Applicant Adele Monaco) in which an 18 month and 13 day delay was found to breach s. 11(b) and led to a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1). 
• Good reminder that the Jordan ceilings are intended as just that. They are not merely aspirational.
• Good reminder for Defence Counsel to bring these applications. Indeed, we are obligated to do so if a viable 11(b) application can be made.