Judicial Interpretation Of Charter Protections In Criminal Proceedings
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982) provides essential protections for individuals in criminal proceedings. Courts have interpreted these protections extensively, balancing individual rights with public safety and effective law enforcement. Key sections include:
Section 7 – Right to life, liberty, and security of the person; principles of fundamental justice.
Section 8 – Protection against unreasonable search and seizure.
Section 9 – Protection against arbitrary detention or imprisonment.
Section 10 – Rights upon arrest or detention (to be informed, to counsel).
Section 11 – Rights in criminal and penal matters (fair trial, presumption of innocence, etc.).
Section 24(2) – Remedy for Charter breaches, including exclusion of evidence.
1. R v. Oakes, [1986] 1 SCR 103
Facts:
Oakes was charged under the Narcotic Control Act for possession of a small amount of drugs, with reverse onus for proving innocent.
Legal Issues:
Whether the reverse onus violated s. 11(d) (presumption of innocence).
How to determine justification under s. 1 (reasonable limits clause).
Ruling:
Supreme Court struck down the reverse onus.
Established the Oakes Test for justifying infringements of Charter rights.
Principles:
Pressing and substantial objective.
Proportionality: rational connection, minimal impairment, balance between objective and infringement.
Oakes remains the foundation for s. 1 analysis.
2. R v. Collins, [1987] 1 SCR 265
Facts:
Police searched Collins’ home without a proper warrant and found evidence of drug trafficking.
Legal Issues:
Whether s. 8 (unreasonable search and seizure) was violated.
Should the evidence be excluded under s. 24(2)?
Ruling:
Search violated s. 8.
Court set out the Collins Test for admissibility: balance seriousness of breach, impact on Charter-protected interests, and reliability of evidence.
Principles:
Evidence obtained in violation of Charter may be excluded if admitting it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
3. R v. Therens, [1985] 1 SCR 613
Facts:
Therens was arrested for impaired driving.
He was not informed of his right to counsel immediately after arrest.
Legal Issues:
Whether failure to inform violated s. 10(b).
Impact on the admissibility of breathalyzer evidence.
Ruling:
Violation of s. 10(b) occurred.
Evidence obtained as a result could be excluded.
Principles:
Right to counsel is fundamental; any delay must be justified.
Ensures procedural fairness and prevents self-incrimination.
4. R v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 SCR 326
Facts:
Crown failed to disclose certain evidence to the defence.
Legal Issues:
Right to full disclosure under s. 7 (principles of fundamental justice) and s. 11(d) (fair trial).
Ruling:
Supreme Court emphasized Crown duty to disclose all relevant evidence, including evidence that may aid the defence.
Principles:
Fair trial requires timely and complete disclosure.
Non-disclosure can lead to stay of proceedings or appellate relief.
5. R v. Singh, [2007] 2 SCR 116
Facts:
Singh was detained at an immigration checkpoint; officers used coercive questioning.
Legal Issues:
Whether s. 7 and s. 10 rights were violated.
Ruling:
Court held that detention without lawful cause violated s. 9, and failure to inform of rights violated s. 10(b).
Principles:
Arbitrary detention is unconstitutional.
Right to counsel must be immediate and meaningful.
6. R v. Grant, [2009] SCC 32
Facts:
Grant was stopped and searched by police without proper grounds; evidence of drug trafficking was seized.
Legal Issues:
Violation of s. 8; admissibility under s. 24(2).
Ruling:
Introduced modern test for s. 24(2) exclusion:
Seriousness of Charter-infringing conduct.
Impact on the Charter-protected interests of the accused.
Societal interest in adjudication on the merits.
Principles:
Balances public interest with protection of individual rights.
Grant test now standard for determining exclusion of evidence.
7. R v. Feeney, [1997] 2 SCR 13
Facts:
Police entered Feeney’s home without a warrant and arrested him for murder.
Legal Issues:
Violation of s. 8?
Ruling:
Entry without a warrant violated s. 8; evidence was inadmissible.
Principles:
Private dwellings have high protection.
Police require a warrant unless exigent circumstances exist.
8. R v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27
Facts:
Jordan experienced excessive delay in criminal proceedings.
Legal Issues:
Violation of s. 11(b) – right to be tried within a reasonable time.
Ruling:
Supreme Court established presumptive ceilings for trial delay: 18 months (provincial) / 30 months (superior court).
Delays beyond these ceilings require stay of proceedings unless exceptional circumstances exist.
Principles:
Enforces timely justice and protects liberty interests.
Provides clear benchmarks for courts and prosecution.
Key Judicial Principles Across Cases
| Charter Section | Principle Established |
|---|---|
| s. 7 | Fundamental justice; procedural and substantive fairness. |
| s. 8 | Search and seizure must be reasonable; evidence may be excluded (Collins, Feeney). |
| s. 9 | Protection against arbitrary detention (Singh). |
| s. 10(b) | Right to counsel must be immediate and effective (Therens, Singh). |
| s. 11(b) | Right to trial within a reasonable time; enforceable ceilings (Jordan). |
| s. 11(d) | Presumption of innocence, fair trial (Oakes, Stinchcombe). |
| s. 24(2) | Remedy for Charter breach; evidence exclusion guided by seriousness, impact, societal interest (Grant, Collins). |
Conclusion
Judicial interpretation of Charter protections in criminal proceedings emphasizes:
Balancing individual rights vs. public safety.
Strict scrutiny of police powers (arrest, search, detention).
Procedural fairness in disclosure, trial, and evidence use.
Remedies for violations, including evidence exclusion and stay of proceedings.
Establishing tests for proportionality, reasonableness, and justifiable limitations (Oakes, Grant).
These decisions collectively shape Canadian criminal procedure, ensuring that law enforcement operates within constitutional boundaries.
RELATED Blog
comments