No police obligation to provide a detainee with resources
Written by Andrew ThomasI admit, the title is a bit of an exaggeration. Detainees have the right to counsel, and police have a positive duty to implement this right. However, the detainee also has duties. In R. v. Sivalingam, 2019 ONCJ 239, Schwarzl, J. provided a good overview of the principles involved. The decision has been cited dozens of times throughout Canada though not, as of June 2021, by a higher court.
[40.] First, where the police assist the detainee or control the means of exercising his rights to counsel, the police must be reasonably diligent, which is the same standard to which the detainee is held if he was implementing his rights on his own: R. v. Wilding, 2007 ONCA 853 (CanLII), [2007] O.J. No. 4776 (C.A.); R. v. Vernon, 2015 ONSC 3943 (CanLII), [2015] O.J. No. 4157 (S.C.J.), leave to appeal refused 2016 ONCA 211; R. v. O’Shea, [2019] O.J. No. 1178 (S.C.J.).
[41.] Second, while police must be reasonably diligent in assisting the detainee in exercising his rights to counsel, they are not required to exhaust all reasonable means for the detainee to speak with a lawyer: R. v. Winterfield, 2010 ONSC 1288 (CanLII), [2010] O.J. No. 952 (S.C.J.) ¶ 46 – 67; R. v. Sharma, [2004] O.J. No. 2991 (S.C.J.).
[42.] Third, having consideration for the circumstances of each case, the test is not whether the police could or should have done more, but rather whether the police provided the detainee with the necessary information and assistance to allow him to exercise his rights: R. v. Gentile, [2008] O.J. No. 3664 (S.C.J.) at ¶ 24; R. v. Blackett, [2006] O.J. No. 2999 (S.C.J.) at ¶ 23 – 24, and 29; R. v. Antoninas, 2014 ONSC 4220 (CanLII), [2014] O.J. No. 5226 (S.C.J.) at ¶ 93; and R. v. Vernon, supra.
[43.] Fourth, the detainee is required to be reasonably diligent in the pursuit of his rights: R. v. Leclair and Ross (1989), 1989 CanLII 134 (SCC), 46 C.C.C. (3d) 129 (S.C.C.) at p. 135; R. v. Littleford, 2001 CanLII 8559 (ON CA), [2001] O.J. No. 2437 (C.A.); R. v. Richfield (2003), 2003 CanLII 52164 (ON CA), 178 C.C.C. (3d) 23 (Ont. C.A.); R. v. Clarke, 2005 CanLII 15452 (ON CA), [2005] O.J. No. 1825 (C.A.) at ¶ 31-33; R. v. Van Binnendyk, [2007] O.J. No. 2899 (C.A.).
[44.] Fifth, where a detainee wants to call a specific lawyer or a third party to access counsel, he has a duty to tell the police who he wants to call and why: R. v. Williams, [2014] O.J. No. 2559 (C.A.) at ¶ 39; R. v. Johnston (2004), 2004 BCCA 148 (CanLII), 183 C.C.C. (3d) 157 (B.C.C.A.); R. v. Antoninas, 2014 ONSC 4220 (CanLII), [2014] O.J. No. 5226 (S.C.J.); R. v. Cheema, 2018 ONSC 229 (CanLII), [2018] O.J. No. 121 (S.C.J.) at ¶ 31; R. v. Mumtaz, [2019] O.J. No. 229 (S.C.J.) at ¶ 25 – 28.
[45.] Sixth, unless the detainee expresses to the police dissatisfaction with the legal advice received, he is not entitled to Charter relief: R. v. Neziol, [2001] O.J. No. 4372 (S.C.J.); R. v. Kumarasamy, [2002] O.J. No. 303 (S.C.J.); R. v. Cairns, 2004 CanLII 17588 (ON CA), [2004] O.J. No. 210 (C.A.); R. v. Burley (2004), 2004 CanLII 9437 (ON CA), 181 C.C.C. (3d) 463 (Ont. C.A.); R. v. Clarke, supra at ¶ 31- 33; R. v. Traicheff, [2008] O.J. No. 4361 (S.C.J.), aff’d [2010] O.J. No. 5355 (C.A.); R. v. Shoker, [2016] O.J. No. 4563 (S.C.J).
On the facts, the court found that the Defendant had not demonstrated that it was more likely than not that the police breached his right to counsel.
When specific performance will be ordered in England and Wales
Written by Andrew ThomasA court may decide to grant an order of specific performance if it is persuaded that an award of damages only would be unjust. However, this a necessary but not a sufficient condition. This paper considers case law and conflict minimisation.
The question in Evans Marshall & Co. Ltd v Bertola SA [1973] 1 WLR 349 (379H) was, ‘Is it just, in all the circumstances, that a plaintiff should be confined to his remedy in damages?’ General principles are outlined by Pearce and Barr (2020 533–46). Courts order specific performance to avoid ‘encouraging’ the breaking of a contract. In Decro-Wall International SA v Practitioners in Marketing [1971] 1 WLR 361, the defendant had worked to create a market for the claimant’s goods. The claimant apparently found a distributor it preferred and argued that the defendant’s late payments were a repudiation of their agreement. The court stated: ‘Damages in such a case are very difficult to prove and I do not believe that they would by themselves be an adequate remedy’ (371–).
However, Decro-Wall may have been decided differently. Difficulty in valuating damages is not a reason to award specific performance (Zinc Cobham 1 Ltd v Adda Hotels [2018] EWHC 1025 (Ch)), and courts avoid ‘creating oppression caused by the defendant having to do things under threat of proceedings for contempt’ (Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd v Argyll Stores ([1997] UKHL 17).
Specific performance is considered an ‘exceptional’ remedy and is not ordered where common law damages are adequate. Indeed, in Co-operative, it was argued that it may be refused even when damages are not an adequate remedy. The quasi-criminal enforcement mechanism, punishment for contempt, moderates the court’s discretion. ‘Specific’ performance entails an assessable result.
Circumstances must sometimes be ‘very’ exceptional as ‘the purpose of the law of contract is not to punish wrongdoing but to satisfy the expectations of the party entitled to performance’ (Co-operative). In VTB Commodities Trading DAC v JSC Antipinsky Refinery [2020] EWHC 72 (Comm), the claimant prepaid nearly €195 million for oil but learned the refinery was instead delivering oil elsewhere. VTB obtained an injunction in arbitrations. The High Court lifted the injunction. The defendant was double selling its product, but equitable relief is unjustified ‘even where the seller is dishonest in taking prepayment and has sold its entire production to a third party’ (81).
The minimum condition for an order of specific performance is that the innocent party has a legitimate interest beyond financial compensation (Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdessi (Rev 3) [2015] UKSC 67 at 30). MacMahon (2018) argues that ‘self-interested exchange relationships often contain the seeds of conflict, and that the best hope for legal and social institutions is to manage the conflict’ (272–3). MacMahon suggests that courts should enforce contracts as agreed but that conflict minimisation should be imperative. Specific performance can prolong a dispute (or ‘a continuing hostile relationship’ Co-operative) – when the aim should be to end the dispute.
AB v. CD [2014] EWCA Civ 229 discussed a contract with a limitation clause involving the adequacy of damages as a remedy for a breach. The court found that an agreement regarding damages did not constitute an agreed price to permit breach of the contract. ‘The primary obligation of a party is to perform the contract. The requirement to pay damages in the event of a breach is a secondary obligation’; the court argued that equitable relief would reflect ‘the substantial justice of the situation’ (27). (It is perhaps interesting that ‘justice’ here apparently required the qualifier.)
Parties to a contract can include performance clauses. However, courts may not enforce these either (Quadrant Visual Communications Ltd v Hutchison Telephone (UK) Ltd [1991] 11 WLUK 378). MacMahon asserts that courts retain the discretion to deny specific performance ‘to put an end to a conflict-ridden contractual relationship’ (288).
Doctrine was discussed in Yaxley v. Gotts & Anr [1999] EWCA Civ 3006. The court decided that the doctrine guiding the statute made an oral contract for real property unenforceable but not void. Under the heading of ‘The public policy principle’, the judgement referred to various authorities, but the contexts were deemed too varied. Ultimately, the court found that the doctrine of joint enterprise and that of constructive trust overlapped and thus ordered Gotts to perform.
In a discussion of the sale of land, Davies (2018) notes that in the past, orders to perform were made only to the vendor; because the vendor wanted only the purchaser’s money, ‘he should be limited to remedies at law and specific performance should not be awarded’ (330). However, purchasers may now be ordered to follow through with a purchase. Davies speculates that an emphasis on mutuality is responsible (a remedy available to the purchaser should also be available to the vendor). Common law damages better protect parties’ freedom of action and autonomy since parties may change their minds (327). Nevertheless, Davies argues that courts should ignore developments elsewhere (e.g. Canada) and continue to order specific performance in contracts concerning land.
Chattel which is ‘intrinsically valuable’ (Garcia v De Aldama [2002] EWHC 2087 (Ch)) is susceptible to claims for specific performance. As for what courts mean when they refer to ‘value’ in claims of this nature, one might be required to look to aesthetics or perhaps anthropology (Graeber 2001).
Even where a statute specifically provides for the availability of specific performance, difficulties arise, as Jan v Torrance [2002] EWCA Civ 431 illustrates. The Court of Appeal allowed an order for repairs but, arguably for better conflict management, remitted the matter to the county court to sort out. (Pearce and Barr refer to Consumer Rights Act 2015 s 58, but a citation of this section has yet to be reported.)
An assumption of Marxist theory of law is that ‘parties to capitalist exchange relationships are inherently antagonistic (MacMahon n15). Arguments against equitable relief may be motivated by the desire to minimise conflict, which, for MacMahon, is ‘part of what it means […] to do justice’ (298).
References
Books
Pearce, R and Barr, W (2020) ‘Chapter 23 - Specific Performance’ in Equity, Trusts and Land Law 4th ed, Oxford University Press.
Graeber, D (2001) Toward an Anthropological Theory of Value: The False Coin of Our Own Dreams, Palgrave Macmillan.
Articles
Davies, PS (2018) ‘Being Specific About Specific Performance’ CPL 4 pp 324–338.
MacMahon, P (2018) ‘Conflict and Contract Law’ OJLS 38(2) pp 270–298.
Cases
AB v CD 153 [2014] EWCA Civ 229, [2015] WLR 771.
Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdessi (Rev 3) [2015] UKSC 67, [2015] 3 WLR 1373.
Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd v. Argyll Stores [1997] UKHL 17, [1997] 2 WLR 898.
Decro-Wall International SA v Practitioners in Marketing [1971] 1 WLR 361, [1971] 2 All ER 216.
Evans Marshall & Co. Ltd v Bertola SA [1973] 1 WLR 349, [1973] 1 All ER 992.
Garcia v De Aldama [2002] EWHC 2087 (Ch), [2002] 10 WLUK 323.
Jan & Anor v Torrance [2002] EWCA Civ 431, [2002] WL 1876255.
Quadrant Visual Communications Ltd v Hutchison Telephone (UK) Ltd [1991] 11 WLUK 378, [1993] BCLC 442.
VTB Commodities Trading DAC v JSC Antipinsky Refinery [2020] EWHC 72 (Comm), [2020] WLR 1227.
Yaxley v Gotts & Anr [1999] EWCA Civ 3006, [1999] 3 WLR 1217.
Zinc Cobham 1 Ltd v Adda Hotels [2018] EWHC 1025 (Ch) [2018] WL 02048910.
Legislation
Consumer Rights Act 2015 c 15.
Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) has numerous enemies. Some of them have formed a government which controls (or at least directs) a majority in the Commons. Though the government which enacted it did not intend the Act to be an innovation in constitutional law (Loveland 2018 521), the highest courts quickly recognised its constitutional importance. Indeed, a recognition of its (present) integral status is implied by the government’s promise to establish a ‘Constitution, Democracy and Rights Commission’ (Law Society 2019). While there is no denying the impact of the Act especially on the rights of individuals, its precarity suggests describing it as constitutional would be premature and even wistful.
In a discussion of Quila ([2011] UKSC 45) and proportionality as a ground for review, Loveland suggested that HRA 1998 ‘altered the balance of power between the different branches of the government’ (579). Restated, HRA 1998 altered the balance of power between the judiciary and the executive. This obviously impacted the constitution. With Wilson LJ’s ‘ten question’ methodology, the Court was in effect instructing the government on how to draft policy . However, it soon backed away from such overt ‘activism’.
In Rajavi ([2014] UKSC 60 para 29), Sumption LJ remarked that
traditional notions of the constitutional distribution of powers have unquestionably been modified by the Human Rights Act 1998. In the first place, any arguable allegation that a person’s Convention rights have been infringed is necessarily justiciable. Section 6 of the Act requires public authorities, including the courts, to give effect to those rights.
This requirement arguably prompted the emergence or, as Loveland put it, the (re‑)emergence of the principle that certain rights are ‘fundamental’ and, presumably, constitutional. In the same judgment, Neuberger LJ opined that the ‘Act for the first time formally introduced fundamental rights into the domestic law of the United Kingdom’ (56). Domestic law is common law.
In Pham ([2015] UKSC 19), Sumption resisted identifying particular rights as fundamental and elaborated on the standard of review appropriate for a rights-related matter. He emphasised (para 107) the ‘significance’ of the right interfered with and that the court must be ‘competent’ to assess the balance the decision-maker made. His opinion, described by Loveland as providing a ‘sliding scale’ approach, added some legal certainty to substantive review and incorporated elements of proportionality into the common law.
In Rajavi, Sumption (para 29) continued:
… the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights calls for a standard of review of the proportionality of the decisions of public authorities which is not only formal and procedural but to some extent substantive.
‘To some extent’: this is a telling modifier. Proportionality was repeatedly considered by the highest courts – but, as Loveland (581) observed, it was not adopted as a ground outside of statutory (ie HRA 1998 and ECHR) review.
Proportionality has its critics (eg Tsakyrakis 2009), but it has much to recommend it. It has been thoroughly developed in European jurisprudence. Perhaps unfortunately, outside statutory review it has not replaced irrationality. The current government apparently intends to replace HRA 1998 and to take the United Kingdom out of the Convention. Deference to the common law – and to the doctrine of deference itself – will likely result in the loss of the principle of proportionality from judicial review.
Sumption in Rajavi (para 31) argued that
the obligation of the courts to adjudicate on alleged infringements of Convention rights does mean that the traditional reticence of the courts about examining the basis for executive decisions in certain areas of policy can no longer be justified on constitutional grounds.
Will this reticence return? Allan (2006 671–672) observed that ‘When individual rights have required protection, neither the formal source of the power in question nor its intrinsically discretionary character have proved impenetrable barriers to judicial scrutiny’. HRA 1998 facilitates this scrutiny in important ways. Following Quila, however, the Court arguably returned to deference.
The doctrine of deference makes the barriers identified by Allan more formidable than they need be. Allan (679–680) attacked it thus:
Even when a more ‘‘intensive’’ form of appraisal is permitted, as when the curtailment of rights is subjected to review for proportionality, the roles of court and public authority remain distinct as long as the latter retains an element of discretion in its pursuit of the public interest. It follows that there is no role for any distinct doctrine of deference to fulfil: its invocation above and beyond the ordinary constraints inherent in judicial review amounts to an abdication of the judicial role and a failure to protect legal rights. Either such a doctrine restates what is already implicit in the ordinary mechanisms of judicial review, or it dictates judicial abstinence from the functions reposed in the courts by the rule of law.
Loveland agreed. Elaborating on Allan’s argument, Loveland posited that the courts have used the notion of deference to ‘relinquish their traditional constitutional responsibilities’ (554–555). The courts blurred the distinction between hierarchy and function. The legal meaning of a legislative measure should be determined by the courts and not the executive body which published it. The courts have been provided ample opportunity to broaden proportionality (simply, that any infringement be ‘necessary in a democratic society’) as a ground of review.
Bringing rights 'home’ afforded the courts the opportunity fully to incorporate proportionality into the common law. Their doing so should have surprised no one – after all, the United Kingdom helped draft the Convention. The highest court chose not to do so. If the highest courts will not innovate, lower courts, try as they might, cannot.
The constitution does not offer a means to legally entrench human rights, however ‘fundamental’ these may be. Fortunately, HRA 1998 has contributed to the common law. Courts were perhaps aware that the Act was unlikely to survive and tentatively incorporated features of proportionality. Their understanding of deference – to both Parliament and the common law – allowed them to do no more. Battles will continue on the traditional grounds for the foreseeable future.
References
Book
Loveland, I. (2018) Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, and Human Rights, 8th ed, Oxford U P.
Articles
Allan, T.R.S. (2006) ‘Human rights and judicial review: a critique of “due deference”’, Cambridge Law Journal, vol 65(3) pp 671–695.
The Law Society (28 November 2019) ‘General election 2019: summary of party manifestos’ [Online]. Available at www.lawsociety.org.uk/policy-campaigns/articles/general-election-2019-party-manifesto-summaries (Accessed 4 March 2020).
Tsakyrakis, S. ‘Proportionality: an assault on human rights?’ (2009) International Journal of Constitutional Law, vol 7(3), pp 468 – 493.
Cases
Pham (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) [2015] UKSC 19, [2015] 1 WLR 1591
R (on the application of Quila and another) (FC) (Respondents) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant) [2011] UKSC 45, [2012] AC 621
Lord Carlile of Berriew QC, & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] UKSC 60, [2014] WLR(D) 479 (Rajavi)
Legislation
Human Rights Act 1998 c 42
International instruments
European Convention on Human Rights (‘Convention’, ECHR)
Entering the political arena - Cherry/Miller and the indivisibility of the democratic model and the rule of law
Written by Andrew Thomas
As cross-examiner, you can (and should) be vigorous and thorough. It is not "abusive" to challenge a witness on unpleasant things, for example, their biases or their criminal record, as long as your question is asked in good faith and is not intended to mislead the witness. But there are limits.
Essential Elements of the Tort of Negligence
Written by Andrew Thomas
The field of negligence is delineated by considerations of whether it is appropriate, or fair, for a duty of care to be imposed. Modern courts have worked to define and elaborate this duty. In so doing, they have sought to define and describe the essential aspects of the duty of care. This article examines the features of the tort of negligence, and the tests and rules that have developed and refined the tort, by applying them to a hypothetical scenario involving an automobile accident.
Damage Awards Available in Small Claims Court
Written by Andrew Thomas
Courts have identified six types of damages that a person (or corporation) can claim as compensation for loss or injury. Which types might Small Claims actually award a successful plaintiff? Here is a break down.
Rules of the Ontario Court - Steps of a Trial
Written by Andrew Thomas
If you are charged with committing a provincial offence (POA) in Chatham-Kent, your trial will be held at the Ontario Court of Justice. If you are self-represented, be sure to review the Rules. The most important of these, as they pertain to a trial, are summarized below.
There are three types of provincial offences: mens rea, strict liability and absolute liability. The type of offence has consequences for both the prosecutor and the defendant. A two-step analysis may be used to identify the type of offence.
Have you been served with a Plaintiff's Claim in Chatham? If so, do not ignore it. A successful plaintiff could empty your bank account, garnish your wages, even have your car and house seized and sold.
More...
Introduction to Procedural Fairness in Administrative Law
Written by Andrew Thomas
Procedural fairness is, or should be, a fundamental principle of administrative law, the law that regulates state (in Canada, provincial, territorial and federal) agencies. Procedural fairness requires, at a minimum, that a person be consulted before a final decision that will impact them is made.
Rather than detailing a claim in a Form 7A, consider appending a schedule. The judge will have the substance of the claim in a clear, easy-to-read format. Here is a PDF of a sample schedule for a plaintiff's claim. Its elements are described below.
Collected here are links to the current rules, practice directions and guidelines of the more important tribunals in Ontario. Links to tribunal decisions published on CanLII can be found here as well.
Serving
CHATHAM
TILBURY
WALLACEBURG
BLENHEIM
RIDGETOWN
WHEATLEY
DRESDEN
BOTHWELL