Abstract
In 2022, the Supreme Court of Canada issued two judgments with respect to the constitutional right to counsel: R. v. Dussault and R. v. Lafrance. This right is located in section 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Specifically, both decisions concern an accused’s right to reconsult counsel in the context of custodial police interrogations. Further to earlier Supreme Court jurisprudence regarding an individual’s constitutional right to counsel, an accused is permitted to consult a lawyer prior to police questioning. Police must refrain from questioning the individual until that individual has had an opportunity to consult a lawyer. However, having consulted a lawyer, an accused is not entitled to have counsel present during questioning. Nevertheless, the Court has held that, in certain contexts, an accused may be permitted to reconsult counsel once an interrogation has commenced and where there is reason to question the detainee’s understanding of their rights. In Dussault and Lafrance, the Court rightly concluded that the two accused individuals were entitled to reconsult their lawyers after the interrogations commenced and police interrogators failed to provide them with this opportunity. While agreeing with the Court’s conclusions in these judgments, the author argues that these cases illustrate the importance of having a right to have counsel present during such interrogations. The right to reconsult counsel is contingent on police interrogators perceiving these changed circumstances, which many may be unwilling to see, particularly while in hot pursuit of a confession. The right to have a lawyer present would enable an accused to have access to advice in real time without having to rely on an interrogator to properly register such changed circumstances. In acknowledging a right to have counsel present, the Court would be recognizing a broader vision of counsel serving as a lifeline during custodial interrogations. The ability to have counsel present would require the Court to revisit its earlier jurisprudence from 2010, including the decisions in R. v. Sinclair and R. v. McCrimmon.
Citation Information
Khoday, Amar.
"A Lifeline During Custodial Interrogations? The Right to Counsel and Reflections on R. v. Dussault and R. v. Lafrance."
The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference
115.
(2024).
DOI: https://doi.org/10.60082/2563-8505.1451
https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/sclr/vol115/iss1/9
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.
References
1 R. v. Hebert, [1990] S.C.J. No. 64, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 151 at 176 (S.C.C.).
2 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11 [hereinafter "Charter"].
3 R. v. Lafrance, [2022] S.C.J. No. 32 at para. 97, 2022 SCC 32 (S.C.C.). Though in other decisions, the Court has referred to another right as the single most important organizing principle in criminal law - the right of an accused not to be forced into assisting in their own prosecution. See, e.g., R. v. P. (M.B.), [1994] S.C.J. No. 27, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 555 (S.C.C.).
4 R. v. Manninen, [1987] S.C.J. No. 41, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1233 (S.C.C.); R. v. Taylor, [2014] S.C.J. No. 50, [2014] 2 S.C.R. 495 (S.C.C.).
5 R. v. Sinclair, [2010] S.C.J. No. 35, [2010] 2 S.C.R. 310 (S.C.C.), R. v. McCrimmon, [2010] S.C.J. No. 36, [2010] 2 S.C.R. 402 (S.C.C.).
6 R. v. Sinclair, [2010] S.C.J. No. 35 at paras. 49-52, [2010] 2 S.C.R. 310 (S.C.C.).
7 R. v. Lafrance, [2022] S.C.J. No. 32 at para. 72, 2022 SCC 32 (S.C.C.).
8 R. v. Dussault, [2022] S.C.J. No. 16 at para. 56, 2022 SCC 16 (S.C.C.); R. v. Lafrance, [2022] S.C.J. No 32 at para. 88, 2022 SCC 32 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv23hcfdp.34
9 R. v. Dussault, [2022] S.C.J. No. 16 at para. 57, 2022 SCC 16 (S.C.C.); R. v. Lafrance, [2022] S.C.J. No 32 at para. 102, 2022 SCC 32 (S.C.C.).
10 The Charter right to counsel, as well as Sinclair and accompanying decisions, have inspired important academic commentary. See, e.g., Lisa Dufraimont, "The Interrogation Trilogy and Protections for Interrogated Suspects in Canadian Law" (2011) 54 S.C.L.R. (2d) 309; https://doi.org/10.60082/2563-8505.1217; Vanessa A. MacDonnell, "R v Sinclair: Balancing Individual Rights and Societal Interests Outside Section 1 of the Charter" (2012) 38:1 Queen's L.J. 137; Marc W. Patry, Steven M. Smith & Nicole M. Adams, "Recent Supreme Court of Canada Rulings on Criminal Defendants' Right to Counsel" (2014) 20:8 Psychology, Crime & Law 741 https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2013.854795; Steve Coughlan, "Is the Right to Counsel a Nuisance?" (2023) 27:1 Can. Crim. L. Rev. 37.
11 R. v. Oickle, [2000] S.C.J. No. 38, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 3 (S.C.C.); R. v. Sinclair, [2010] S.C.J. No. 35 at para. 60, [2010] 2 S.C.R. 310 (S.C.C.).
12 R. v. Sinclair, [2010] S.C.J. No. 35 at para. 152, [2010] 2 S.C.R. 310 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1079/9781845937058.0035
13 R. v. Singh, [2007] S.C.J. No. 48, [2007] 3 S.C.R. 405 (S.C.C.).
14 See R. v. Oickle, [2000] S.C.J. No. 38, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 3 (S.C.C.); R. v. Lafrance, [2022] S.C.J. No 32, 2022 SCC 32 (S.C.C.).
15 R. v. McCrimmon, [2010] S.C.J. No. 36 at para. 40, [2010] 2 S.C.R. 402 (S.C.C.).
16 R. v. Dussault, [2022] S.C.J. No. 16 at para. 56, 2022 SCC 16 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1007/s15034-022-3830-5
17 R. v. Rover, [2018] O.J. No. 4646 at para. 45, 143 O.R. (3d) 135 (Ont. C.A.) (emphasis added).
18 R. v. Rover, [2018] O.J. No. 4646 at para. 44, 143 O.R. (3d) 135 (Ont. C.A.).
19 R. v. Oickle, [2000] S.C.J. No. 38, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 3 (S.C.C.).
20 R. v. Lafrance, [2021] A.J. No. 171 at para. 48, 2021 ABCA 51 (Alta. C.A.).
21 R. v. McCrimmon, [2010] S.C.J. No. 36 at para. 37, [2010] 2 S.C.R. 402 (S.C.C.).
22 For illustrations of such vulnerabilities in play, see R. v. Soriano, [2021] M.J. No. 58, 2021 MBPC 6 (Man. Prov. Ct.); R. v. Soulier, [2020] M.J. No. 235, 2020 MBPC 40 (Man. Prov. Ct.); Kent Roach, Wrongfully Convicted: Guilty Pleas, Imagined Crimes, and What Canada Must Do to Safeguard Justice (Toronto: Simon & Shuster, 2023) at 218.
23 R. v. Sinclair, [2010] S.C.J. No. 35 at para. 41, [2010] 2 S.C.R. 310 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1079/9781845937058.0035
24 See, e.g., R. v. Beaver, [2022] S.C.J. No. 54 at para. 25, 2022 SCC 54 (S.C.C.).
25 I hasten to add that I have expressed concerns about these alternative methods elsewhere. See, e.g., Amar Khoday, "Scrutinizing Mr. Big: Police Trickery, the Confessions Rule and the Need to Regulate Extra-Custodial Undercover Interrogations" (2013) 60:2 C.L.Q. 277; Amar Khoday, "'Interrogators often use honey, not vinegar, in pursuit of the truth': Resistance, the Constitutional Right to Silence and Judicial Responses to Cell-Plant Operations" (2023) 46:4 Man. L.J. 27. Nevertheless, these techniques are available. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4571464
26 See, e.g., R. v. Hart, [2014] S.C.J. No. 52, [2014] 2 S.C.R. 544 (S.C.C.); R. v. Taylor, [2014] S.C.J. No. 50, [2014] 2 S.C.R. 495 (S.C.C.).
27 R. v. Dussault, [2022] S.C.J. No. 16, 2022 SCC 16 (S.C.C.); R. v. Lafrance, [2022] S.C.J. No. 32, 2022 SCC 32 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.21570/BUL-202202-7
28 "Handyman accused of killing woman met her at Rona store", CBC (August 30, 2013), online: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/handyman-accused-of-killing-woman-mether-at-rona-store-1.1336277.
29 "Handyman accused of killing woman met her at Rona store", CBC (August 30, 2013), online: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/handyman-accused-of-killing-woman-mether-at-rona-store-1.1336277.
30 "Man found guilty of 2nd-degree murder in 2013 death of Gatineau woman", CBC (October 26, 2013), online: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/patrick-dussault-seconddegree-murder-conviction-1.3822904.
31 R. v. Lafrance, [2022] S.C.J. No. 32, 2022 SCC 32 (S.C.C.).
32 R. v. Dussault, [2022] S.C.J. No. 16, 2022 SCC 16 (S.C.C.); R. v. Lafrance, [2022] S.C.J. No. 32, 2022 SCC 32 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.21570/BUL-202202-7
33 The facts of the Dussault case discussed in this section can be found in R. v. Dussault, [2022] S.C.J. No. 16 at paras. 5-17, 2022 SCC 16 (S.C.C.).
34 R. v. Dussault, [2022] S.C.J. No. 16 at para. 16, 2022 SCC 16 (S.C.C.) (emphasis in original).
35 R. v. Dussault, [2022] S.C.J. No. 16 at para. 16, 2022 SCC 16 (S.C.C.) (emphasis in original).
36 R. v. Dussault, [2022] S.C.J. No. 16 at para. 16, 2022 SCC 16 (S.C.C.) (emphasis in original).
37 R. v. Dussault, [2022] S.C.J. No. 16 at para. 16, 2022 SCC 16 (S.C.C.).
38 Except as otherwise indicated, the facts from the Lafrance case as discussed in this section are drawn from R. v. Lafrance, [2022] S.C.J. No. 32 at paras. 6-18, 2022 SCC 32 (S.C.C.).
39 R. v. Lafrance, [2021] A.J. No. 171, 2021 ABCA 51 at para. 13 (Alta. C.A.).
40 R. v. Lafrance, [2022] S.C.J. No. 32 at para. 16, 2022 SCC 32 (S.C.C.).
41 R. v. Lafrance, [2022] S.C.J. No. 32 at para. 83, 2022 SCC 32 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1093/glycob/cwac007
42 Youth Criminal Justice Act, S.C. 2002, c. 1, s. 146.
43 R. v. Dussault, [2022] S.C.J. No. 16 at para. 30, 2022 SCC 16 (S.C.C.)
R. v. Lafrance, [2022] S.C.J. No. 32 at para. 70, 2022 SCC 32 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1002/nadc.20224127296
44 R. v. Lafrance, [2022] S.C.J. No. 32 at para. 70, 2022 SCC 32 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1002/nadc.20224127314
45 R. v. Lafrance, [2022] S.C.J. No. 32 at para. 70, 2022 SCC 32 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1002/nadc.20224127296
46 R. v. Lafrance, [2022] S.C.J. No. 32 at para. 71, 2022 SCC 32 (S.C.C.).
47 R. v. Lafrance, [2022] S.C.J. No. 32 at para. 71, 2022 SCC 32 (S.C.C.). For a more in-depth discussion of the competing views regarding the purpose of s. 10 (b) and how the majority's decision in Lafrance departs from the SCC's traditional jurisprudence, see Steve Coughlan, "Is the Right to Counsel a Nuisance?" (2023) 27:1 Can. Crim. L. Rev. 37.
48 R. v. Lafrance, [2022] S.C.J. No. 32 at para. 71, 2022 SCC 32 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2022.06.001
49 R. v. Lafrance, [2022] S.C.J. No. 32 at para. 71, 2022 SCC 32 (S.C.C.).
50 R. v. Dussault, [2022] S.C.J. No. 16 at para. 30, 2022 SCC 16 (S.C.C.).
51 R. v. Lafrance, [2022] S.C.J. No. 32 at para. 71, 2022 SCC 32 (S.C.C.).
52 R. v. Dussault, [2022] S.C.J. No. 16, 2022 SCC 16 (S.C.C.); R. v. Lafrance, [2022] S.C.J. No. 32, 2022 SCC 32 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.21570/BUL-202202-7
53 R. v. Dussault, [2022] S.C.J. No. 16, 2022 SCC 16 (S.C.C.); R. v. Lafrance, [2022] S.C.J. No. 32, 2022 SCC 32 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.21570/BUL-202202-7
54 R. v. Burlingham, [1995] S.C.J. No. 39, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 206 (S.C.C.).
55 R. v. Burlingham, [1995] S.C.J. No. 39, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 206 (S.C.C.).
56 R. v. Dussault, [2022] S.C.J. No. 16 at para. 53, 2022 SCC 16 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.2478/ep-2022-0011
57 R. v. Dussault, [2022] S.C.J. No. 16 at para. 53, 2022 SCC 16 (S.C.C.).
58 R. v. Dussault, [2022] S.C.J. No. 16 at para. 56, 2022 SCC 16 (S.C.C.).
59 R. v. Dussault, [2022] S.C.J. No. 16 at para. 56, 2022 SCC 16 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.46300/9108.2022.16.11
60 R. v. Dussault, [2022] S.C.J. No. 16 at paras. 43-44, 2022 SCC 16 (S.C.C.).
61 R. v. Dussault, [2020] Q.J. No. 3677 at para. 38, 388 C.C.C. (3d) 362 (Que. C.A.).
62 R. v. Singh, [2007] S.C.J. No. 48, [2007] 3 S.C.R. 405 (S.C.C.).
63 R. v. Lafrance, [2022] S.C.J. No. 32 at para. 73, 2022 SCC 32 (S.C.C.).
64 R. v. Lafrance, [2022] S.C.J. No. 32 at para. 74, 2022 SCC 32 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00058-022-2986-7
65 R. v. Lafrance, [2022] S.C.J. No. 32 at para. 74, 2022 SCC 32 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00058-022-2986-7
66 R. v. Lafrance, [2022] S.C.J. No. 32 at para. 74, 2022 SCC 32 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00058-022-2986-7
67 R. v. Lafrance, [2022] S.C.J. No. 32 at para. 74, 2022 SCC 32 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00058-022-2986-7
68 R. v. Lafrance, [2022] S.C.J. No. 32 at para. 75, 2022 SCC 32 (S.C.C.).
69 R. v. Lafrance, [2022] S.C.J. No. 32 at para. 77, 2022 SCC 32 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1628/jz-2022-0026
70 R. v. Lafrance, [2022] S.C.J. No. 32 at para. 77, 2022 SCC 32 (S.C.C.) (emphasis in original).
71 R. v. Lafrance, [2022] S.C.J. No. 32 at para. 79, 2022 SCC 32 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1615/AtomizSpr.v32.i12.40
72 R. v. Lafrance, [2022] S.C.J. No. 32 at para. 79, 2022 SCC 32 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1615/AtomizSpr.v32.i12.40
73 R. v. Lafrance, [2022] S.C.J. No. 32 at para. 83, 2022 SCC 32 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1093/glycob/cwac007
74 R. v. Lafrance, [2022] S.C.J. No. 32 at para. 84, 2022 SCC 32 (S.C.C.).
75 R. v. Lafrance, [2022] S.C.J. No. 32 at para. 85, 2022 SCC 32 (S.C.C.).
76 R. v. Lafrance, [2022] S.C.J. No. 32 at para. 87, 2022 SCC 32 (S.C.C.).
77 R. v. Lafrance, [2022] S.C.J. No. 32 at para. 87, 2022 SCC 32 (S.C.C.) (emphasis in original).
78 R. v. Lafrance, [2022] S.C.J. No. 32 at para. 87, 2022 SCC 32 (S.C.C.).
79 R. v. Lafrance, [2022] S.C.J. No. 32 at para. 95, 2022 SCC 32 (S.C.C.).
80 R. v. Lafrance, [2022] S.C.J. No. 32 at para. 95, 2022 SCC 32 (S.C.C.).
81 R. v. Lafrance, [2022] S.C.J. No. 32 at para. 97, 2022 SCC 32 (S.C.C.).
82 R. v. Lafrance, [2022] S.C.J. No. 32 at para. 97, 2022 SCC 32 (S.C.C.).
83 R. v. Lafrance, [2022] S.C.J. No. 32 at para. 100, 2022 SCC 32 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv2zrpczd.33
84 R. v. McCrimmon, [2010] S.C.J. No. 36 at para. 40, [2010] 2 S.C.R. 402 (S.C.C.).
85 For illustrations of this in the context of undercover interrogations in detention contexts, see, e.g., R. v. Connors, [2006] N.J. No. 381, 2006 NLTD 61 (N.L.T.D.) and R. v. Leung, [2013] B.C.J. No. 3079, 2013 BCSC 1230 (B.C.S.C.). See also Amar Khoday, "'Interrogators often use honey, not vinegar, in pursuit of the truth': Resistance, the Constitutional Right to Silence and Judicial Responses to Cell-Plant Operations" (2023) 46:4 Man. L.J. 27.
86 R. v. Sinclair, [2010] S.C.J. No. 35 at para. 41, [2010] 2 S.C.R. 310 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1079/9781845937058.0035
87 See, e.g., R. v. Beaver, [2022] S.C.J. No. 54 at para. 25, 2022 SCC 54 (S.C.C.). In Beaver, one of the accused waived any right to consult a lawyer.
88 I am grateful to Professor Lisa Silver (as she then was) who expressed this point during conversation at the Osgoode Hall Constitutional Cases Conferences on April 14, 2023.
89 R. v. Singh, [2007] S.C.J. No. 48, [2007] 3 S.C.R. 405 (S.C.C.).
