COURT FILE NO.: 5708/1998

DATE: 1999/07/27

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

Donald Townsend         - - -      Appellant

 

 

- and -

 

 

Her Majesty the Queen                 ---         Respondent

 

 

Benjamin Pritchard, for the Appellant,

Barrister & Solicitor

642 Queen Street East

Sault Ste. Marie, ON

 

William S. Johnson, for the Respondent

Assistant Crown Attorney

Office of the Crown Attorney

445 Albert Street East

Sault Ste. Marie, ON

 

 

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT        Bolan. J.

 

Page     - 2-

[I] During the course of a lengthy trial in which the Appellant was not represented by counsel, a voir dire was held to determine the admissibility of similar fact evidence. Following a lengthy voir dire in which six witnesses were called, {their evidence covers 187 pages of transcript} the trial judge admitted the similar fact evidence which basically consisted of a driving incident of a somewhat similar nature to the one at bar. The Crown applied to have the evidence given on the voir dire apply to the trial without the necessity of having to recall the witnesses to give the same evidence they gave on the voir dire. The trial judge asked the appellant if he would consent to this procedure. An exchange of questions and answers took place between the Appellant and the trial judge {see transcript Vol. 2, pages 52-54}. It is clear from their exchange that the Appellant did not consent to the Crown's application; nevertheless the trial judge allowed the Crown's application to apply the evidence given on the voir dire to the trial. .

[2] In my view this constitutes an error in law {See R vs. Gauthier, 27 C.C.C. (2nd)14} in which the Supreme Court of Canada held that the evidence heard at the voir dire cannot be used by the judge on the trial of the merits unless both the Crown and the Accused consent.

[3] In his assessment of the evidence, the trial judge relied on the voir dire evidence to convict the Appellant. He specifically alluded to the voir dire evidence when he said at page 241 of Volume two of the transcript:  “Mr. Broadbent's {a complainant who gave evidence at trial} appraisal of the situation and of Mr. Townsend {the Appellant} were not exaggerated given prior conduct of photograph taking of Mr. Harrison and visitors to the property as well as the driving incident involving Mrs. Brandt, another previous neighbour, who was also involved in protracted

 

Page     - 3 -

civil litigation with Mr. Townsend regarding the right-of-way." This evidence of Harrison and Brandt was given on the voir dire and it obviously impacted on the trial judge in arriving at his finding of guilt.

[4] The Crown argues that even if the trial judge erred in law by admitting the voir dire evidence without the Appellant's consent, there was no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice and the appeal be dismissed pursuant to Section 686 (I) (b) (iii) of the Code. I cannot agree with this submission. The trial judge's reliance on the inadmissible evidence satisfies me that there was a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice. In my view there was a reasonable possibility that the verdict would have been different had the error at issue not been made. The trial judge would have been required to charge himself in accordance with R vs. D. W. (1991) 3 C.R. (4th) 302 and he may have come to a different conclusion. I will accordingly quash the conviction.

[5] Defence counsel argues that rather than remit this case for a new trial, I should enter an acquittal. An Appellate Court's power to make such an order is found in Section 686 (8) of the code.

[6] This case has been a long and arduous one heard over four days and involved 13 witnesses. The Complainants and the Appellant were neighbours and had been embroiled for years over a right-of-way dispute. This situation no loner exists. As noted by the trial judge in his reasons for sentence, the complainants have since moved away and the parties no longer have to deal with each other.

 

 

 

 

Page     -4-

 [7] In my view, it is in the best interests for the administration to bring some finality to this dispute. I will accordingly Order that a Stay of Proceedings be entered.

 

Signature of Justice Bolan

M. G. Bolan