Renee Pomerance

The Crown appealed a decision setting aside robbery convictions on the basis that the trial judge gave no reasons for ruling incriminating statements admissible on a voir dire.

Applying the governing principle from Burns, the Court held that the absence of reasons is not, by itself, a ground of appeal where the finding is supportable on the evidence or its basis is apparent from the circumstances.

The only issue on the voir dire was credibility, and the ruling made clear that the trial judge rejected the accused's evidence.

The Court also found no error in law in the jury charge and restored the convictions.

The appellants appealed as of right to the Supreme Court of Canada from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal had dismissed one appellant's appeal against conviction and allowed the Crown's appeal against the other appellant's acquittal for conspiracy to commit robbery.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeals for the reasons given by the Court of Appeal of Ontario.

The appellant was involved in two motor vehicle accidents, the second resulting in a fatality.

At the hospital, blood and urine samples were taken for medical purposes with the appellant's consent.

A coroner subsequently seized the samples under the Coroners Act and turned them over to the police for analysis.

The results were used to convict the appellant of impaired driving causing death and other offences.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the police's appropriation of the samples constituted an unreasonable seizure violating s. 8 of the Charter, the evidence should not be excluded under s. 24(2) because the samples existed independently of the breach, the authorities acted in good faith, and the evidence would have been discovered anyway.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal setting aside his acquittal.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that even assuming there was an unreasonable seizure of blood samples, the subsequent analysis was conducted under a valid search warrant.

Therefore, the admission of the evidence at trial would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute under s. 24(2) of the Charter.