The respondents, Matthew James Johnston and Cody Rae Haevischer, were convicted at of six counts of first-degree murder and one count of conspiracy to commit murder at trial. They applied for a stay of proceedings under section 24(1) of the Charter alleging that their pretrial custody conditions as well as police misconduct during the initial investigation constituted an abuse of process. The Crown brought an application for a summary dismissal of the application without an evidentiary hearing. Following a Vukelich hearing, the trial judge granted the Crown’s application and declined to hold a full evidentiary hearing, finding that the circumstances of the offence were too serious to warrant a stay of proceedings. In 2021, the Court of Appeal for British Columbia dismissed seven grounds of appeal but allowed one, finding that the trial judge erred in summarily dismissing the applications for a stay of proceedings and that an evidentiary hearing was necessary. The Court of Appeal for British Columbia quashed the convictions, affirmed the verdicts of guilt, and ordered an evidentiary hearing on allegations of abuse of process. The Supreme Court of Canada granted leave to appeal.At trial, Mr. McColman brought an application under s. 9 of the Charter, alleging that the traffic stop was unlawful. The arresting officers conceded that there was nothing unusual about Mr. McColman’s driving and relied on the power to conduct random sobriety checks under s. 48(1) of the Highway Traffic Act. The trial judge agreed, Mr. McColman was convicted of impaired driving and appealed. The Summary Conviction Appeal judge held that the trial judge erred in dismissing the Charter application - there was no statutory authority under the Highway Traffic Act for police to conduct a random sobriety check on private property, nor did the power exist at common law. The Summary Conviction Appeal excluded the breath samples under s. 24(2) and entered an acquittal. The Crown appealed to the Court of Appeal for Ontario, where a majority of the Court upheld the decision of the Summary Conviction Appeal Judge, finding that neither the Highway Traffic Act nor the common law authorized the police conduct in this case. The evidence was properly excluded under s. 24(2) – the intrusive nature of a police power to arbitrarily stop and question people on their own property, in the absence of reasonable suspicion of impairment overrode the public interest in the admission of the evidence. The Crown applied for and was granted leave to the Supreme Court of Canada. The issues in this case include: whether there exists any statutory or common law authority to permit the police to conduct a random sobriety check after a person has exited the highway; the correct approach to the statutory interpretation of public welfare legislation; the role of the common law to fill gaps in the legislation under the ancillary powers doctrine and finally the approach to good faith Charter breaches when considering the exclusion of evidence under s. 24(2)

Ask this episode

“What did the council decide on item 42?” — answered with the speaker and the moment.

Transcript

Related