R. v. Van Haarlem, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 982

Gordon John Van Haarlem Appellant

v.

Her Majesty The Queen Respondent

Indexed as: R. v. Van Haarlem

File No.: 22492.

1992: April 27.

Present: La Forest, Gonthier, McLachlin, Stevenson and Iacobucci JJ.

on appeal from the court of appeal for british columbia

Constitutional law ‑‑ Charter of Rights ‑‑ Fundamental justice ‑‑ Right to silence ‑‑ Evidence of accused's conversation with constable ‑‑ Court of Appeal's order to admit evidence not violating accused's s. 7 right to silence ‑‑ New trial properly ordered ‑‑ Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 7.

Statutes and Regulations Cited

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 7.

APPEAL from a judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal (1991), 1991 CanLII 507 (BC CA), 64 C.C.C. (3d) 543, 135 N.R. 379, allowing an appeal from acquittal by Oppal J. Appeal dismissed.

Brian A. Beresh, for the appellant.

William F. Ehrcke, for the respondent.

The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by

//La Forest J.//

La Forest J. -- It will not be necessary to hear from you Mr. Ehrcke. The Court is ready to hand down judgment. The judgment will be pronounced by Justice Iacobucci.

//Iacobucci J.//

Iacobucci J. -- We are all of the view that this appeal, which comes to us as of right, should be dismissed. We agree with the British Columbia Court of Appeal that the appellant's right to silence under s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was not violated in this case, and that the Court of Appeal committed no error either in concluding that the appellant's conversation with Constable McGimpsey should have been admitted as evidence or in ordering a new trial on the ground that the conversation might, with a reasonable degree of certainty, have affected the verdict.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Judgment accordingly.

Solicitors for the appellant: Beresh DePoe Cunningham, Edmonton.

Solicitor for the respondent: The Attorney General of British Columbia, Victoria.