Court of Appeal for Ontario
DATE: 20231130 DOCKET: C70107
Feldman, Miller and Coroza JJ.A.
BETWEEN
His Majesty the King Respondent
and
Amarpreet Singh Doad Appellant
Counsel: Jessica Zita, for the appellant Charmaine Wong, for the respondent
Heard and released orally: November 28, 2023
On appeal from the convictions entered on September 22, 2021 and the sentence imposed on December 16, 2021 by Justice Gordon D. Lemon of the Superior Court of Justice, with reasons reported at 2021 ONSC 6282.
Reasons for Decision
Overview
1The appellant appeals his convictions for robbery of a BMW vehicle, being masked during a home invasion, theft of an Escalade vehicle, failure to stop while being pursued by police, and theft of two car license plates.
2He appeals the trial judge’s finding that Durham Police did not breach his rights under ss. 10(a) and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms upon his arrest. He was arrested by Durham Police following a police dog chase, and then handed off to Peel Police. There was delay by both police forces in giving him his right to counsel, implementing that right, and in bringing him before a judge.
3The trial judge found no ss. 10(a) and 10(b) breach by Durham Police. He also found that the items of physical evidence that were found on the appellant or that he discarded while he was being chased were not “obtained in a manner” that infringed the Charter and, in the alternative, he found that that evidence would not be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.
Procedural Unfairness
4On this appeal, in oral argument, counsel focused on her submission that there was procedural unfairness and a breach of natural justice by the trial judge because he did not advise defence counsel that he was not going to be accepting the Crown’s concession that there had been a ss. 10(a) and 10(b) Charter breach by Durham Police.
5We do not accept this argument. Trial defence counsel made his full argument on the Charter, including considerable questioning by the trial judge, before the Crown made her legal concession. Nor is there any fresh evidence tendered on the appeal that defence counsel would have made a different or further argument, had he been alerted by the trial judge before the reasons were read that the judge was not going to be accepting the Crown’s concession.
6In these circumstances, we find that there was no breach of natural justice.
Admissibility of Evidence
7On the issue whether the trial judge erred in finding that the seized and discarded items sought to be introduced into evidence were not “obtained in a manner” that breached the Charter, using an R. v. Pino analysis, 2016 ONCA 389, 130 O.R. (3d) 561, we are not persuaded that the trial judge made any such error.
8Finally, the trial judge made an alternative finding that had he found a Charter breach, he would have admitted the evidence of the seized and discarded items under s. 24(2). Again, we see no error in his analysis.
Disposition
9The appeal is therefore dismissed.
“K. Feldman J.A.”
“B.W. Miller J.A.”
“S. Coroza J.A.”