(1

'g..

~ 00 0 ~~ u ~ 00"

~ ~ 0 ~.~ ~ ~00 ¿j ~ ~ (1~ .~

'g,.~ (1 0 .~ u

(1 ~ ~ ~cd0 00 ~ (1

u 00 ~ ~= cd ~ S 0 c.(1 (1 ~ ~ u0 ¿j 0 (1 (1~ ~ (1 ~.,. ~ ~ ¿j ~.. ~ "0 ~ 0

(1 .~= .~ ~ a 0 0 ~.. ~ s ~ ~cd ~= u ~ .~ ~ ~ ,. ~~

cd o ~ ,. ~.. ~ ç .~00 ~ ~ ~ (1~ (1 0 (1 ~ ~ ~

~ .. S ~ 00 (1 ~ ~(1 Ë ~ 0~ (1 ~ 0.. (1 (1~ ¿j a~

= ~ 0 ~(1 00 (1.~ ~

E0 ~ 00 ~ 00.~ (1 (1 ~ .~~ ~

cdS~ ¿j s .~ ~s 0 o ,. 0.~ ~ ¿j ~~ u ~

.~ (1 0 ~ (1 ~~ .. ~ ~ ~ '" (1 s.~(1 .~

~ ~ 00~ ~ 0 0.~ ~ ~,. .~ (1 OJ ,. u ~u ~ ~ 00 .~ 00~ (1 1= ~ ~ (1~ ~ ~ (1 ~ 0 (1 ~

~ ~t ~ ~ (10 0 0 0 (1 ~~ ~ ~ ,. ~ ~ c. ~ Z ~~ .~. . . . . . .

~ ~ ~0 ~ ~;. ;.~ 0).~~~ 0)~ 0 "' ~;..~ ~ 0) u~ "' ~ 00 0) 0) ~0 ~ .t~ OJ

~0) ~~ .t ~ .~.~ ~rJ OJ 0) .~.~ ~ ~ u.~ 0 0)ò 0) ~~ ~

~.~ 0 0~ ~.~ ~ 0) ~~ ~ ~ ~~ .~ ~.~ 0) ~ 0)u .~

~ rJ ~~

.~ 0 .~~ ~ ~.~ .~rJ ~ rJ,.. 0 u 0~ ~ ~ ~ ~"' ~ 0) ~u ;. u ~ ~~

ã~ rJ ~ ~ ~0) 0) 0) ~ rJ;. rJ ;. ~ ;.~ 0) rJ rJ rJ 0)rJ

~~ 0)

~0)

~~ ~ s OJCl 0 .~ 0 "' ~~ 0 0) ~ ~~ u ~~ ~~ I I I I~.

· Obj

ectio

ns d

urin

g op

posi

ng c

ouns

el's

cros

s-ex

amin

atio

n sh

ould

be

rare

· Lim

ited

to,

- Q

uest

ions

see

king

priv

ilege

d in

form

atio

n- Truly offensive questions or physical

intim

idat

ion

- W

itnes

s cl

earl

y m

isun

ders

tand

s th

e qu

estio

n- Cross-examining on inadmissible evidence

Page 1

Case Name:R. v. Lyttle

Michael Garfeld Lyttle, appellant;v.

Her Majesty The Queen, respondent.

(2004) S.C.J. No.8

(2004) A.C.S. no 8

2004 SCC 5

2004 CSC 5

(2004) 1 S.C.R 193

(2004) 1 RC.S. 193

235 D.L.R (4th) 244

316 N.R 52

J.E.2004-452

1840.A.C.l

180 C.C.C. (3d) 476

17 C.R (6th) 1

60 W.C.B. (2d) 74

File No.: 29412.

Supreme Cour of Canada

Heard: October 17, 2003;Judgment: February 12, 2004.

Page 2

Present: McLachlin c.J. and Major, Binnie, Arbour,LeBel, Deschamps and Fish JJ.

(75 paras.)

Appeal From:

ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARO

Catchwords:

Criminal law -- Evidence -- Witnesses -- Cross-examination -- Right of accused to cross-examineprosecution witnesses -- Whether counsel must provide evidentiary foundation for cross-examination or whether good faith basis suffcient for raising questions.

Criminal law -- Procedural unfairness at trial -- Curative proviso -- Defence counsel obliged tocall police investigators as her own witnesses against her wishes and to forfeit statutory right toaddress jury last -- Whether resulting trial unfairness could be saved by applying curative proviso -- Criminal Code, R.S.e. 1985, c. C-46, s. 686(l) (b)(iii).

Summary:

The victim was severely beaten by five men. He claimed that he had been beaten over a gold chainbut two police officers stated in separate reports, which were disclosed to the defence, that they be-lieved the attack was related to a drug debt. The victim identified the accused in a photographicline-up. The defence theory was that the beating related to an unpaid drg debt and that the victimhad identified the accused as his assailant to protect the real offenders -- his associates in a drugring. The Crown did not intend to call the officers as witnesses. In a voir dire and repeatedly at trial,the trial judge stated that defence counsel could only proceed with her proposed cross--examinationof the Crown's witnesses if she provided substantive evidence of the drug debt theory. Defencecounsel called the offcers and the accused lost his statutory right to address the jur last. The de-fence did not present any other evidence. The accused was convicted of robbery, assault causingbodily har, kidnapping and possession of a dangerous weapon. In affirming the convictions, theCour of Appeal held that the trial judge had erred in requiring defence counsel to call evidence insupport of her drug debt theory but that the verdict could be saved by resort to s. 686(l)(b)(iii) ofthe Criminal Code.

Held: The appeal should be allowed and a new trüil ordered.

The trial judge unduly restricted the right of the accused to conduct a full and proper cross-examination ofthe principal Crown witness. The accused was not required to undertake to call evi-dence to support his drug debt theory as a condition for permitting the cross-examination. The rightof an accused to cross-examine prosecution witnesses without significant and unwaranted con-straint is an essential component of the right to make a full answer and defence. The right of cross-examination, which is protected by ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Free-doms, must be jealously protected and broadly construed. A question can be put to a witness incross-examination regarding matters that need not be proved independently, provided that counselhas a good faith basis for putting the question. It is not uncommon for counsel to believe what is in

Page 3

fact true without being able to prove it otherwise than by cross-examination. "A good faith basis" isa fuction ofthe information available to the cross-examiner, his or her belief in its likely accuracy,and the purose for which it is used. The information may fall short of admissible evidence and maybe incomplete or uncertain, provided the cross-examiner does not put suggestions to the witnessrecklessly or that he or she knows to be false. The cross-examiner may pursue any hypothesis that ishonestly advanced on the strength of reasonable inference, experience or intuition and there is norequirement of an evidentiar foundation for every factual suggestion put to a witness in cross-examination. Where a question implies the existence of a disputed factual predicate that is man-festly tenuous or suspect, a trial judge may seek assurance that a good faith basis exists for the ques-tion. Ifthe judge is satisfied in this regard and the question is not otherwise prohibited, counselshould be permitted to put the question to the witness. In this case, the existence of a good faith ba-sis for the defence's drug debt theory had become apparent over the course of the two voir dires.The trial judge erred in law by requiring an evidentiar foundation for the cross-examination.

The trial judge's error cannot be cured by resort to s. 686(1)(b)(iii) ofthe Code. The ruling had anintimidating effect on defence counsel, disrupted the rhythm of her cross-examinations, and man-festly constrained their scope. It obliged defence counsel to call police investigators as her own wit-nesses against her wishes. The Crown was permitted to cross-examine its own officers and the ac-cused was found to have forfeited his statutory right to address the jur last. This had a fatal impacton the fairness of the triaL. It canot be said that in the absence of the trial judge's error, there is noreasonable possibility that the verdict would have been different and it would be wrong in these cir-cumstances to apply the curative proviso.

Cases Cited

Explained: R. v. Howard, (1989) 1 S.C.R 1337; Browne v. Dun (1893), 6 R 67; disapproved: Rv. Fiqia (1993), 145 A.R 241; R v. Fickes (1994), 132 N.S.R (2d) 314; referred to: R v. Stinch-combe, (1991) 3 S.C.R 326; R v. Cook, (1997) 1 S.C.R 1113; R v. Bencardino (1973), 15 C.C.C.(2d) 342; R v. Krause, (1986) 2 S.C.R. 466; R. v. Seaboyer, (1991) 2 S.C.R 577; R v. Osolin,(1993) 4 S.C.R 595; R v. Meddoui, (1991) 3 S.C.R 320; R v. Logiacco (1984), 11 C.C.C. (3d)374; R. v. McLaughlin (1974), 15 C.C.C. (2d) 562; United Nurses of Alberta v. Alberta (AttorneyGeneral), (1992) 1 S.C.R 901; R v. Shearng, (2002) 3 S.C.R 33,2002 SCC 58; Michelson v.United States, 335 U.S. 469 (1948); R v. Norman (1993), 16 O.R (3d) 295; Palmer v. The Queen,(1980) 1 S.C.R 759; Rondel v. Worsley, (1969) 1 A.C. 191; R. v. Bevan, (1993) 2 S.C.R 599; R v.Anandmalik (1984),6 O.A.c. 143; R v. Wallck (1990),69 Man. R (2d) 310.

Statutes and Regulations Cited

Canadian Charer of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 7, 11 (d).

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, ss. 651(3), 686(1)(b)(iii).

Authors Cited

Brauti, Peter M. "Improper Cross-Examination" (1998),40 Crim. L.Q. 69.

Sopinka, John, Sidney N. Lederman and Alan W. Bryant. The Law of Evidence in Canada, 2nd ed.Toronto: Butterworths, 1999.

Page 4

History and Disposition:

APPEAL from a judgment of the Ontaro Cour of Appeal (2002), 61 O.R (3d) 97, 167 C.C.C. (3d)503,4 C.R (6th) 1, 163 O.A.C. 33, (2002) O.J. No. 3308 (QL), affirming a judgment ofthe Supe-

rior Cour of Justice. Appeal allowed.

Counsel:

David M. Tanovich, for the appellant.

Shelley Hallett, for the respondent.

The judgment of the Cour was delivered by

MAJOR and FISH JJ.:--

1. Introduction

1 Cross-examination may often be futile and sometimes prove fatal, but it remains nonetheless afaithfl frend in the pursuit of justice and an indispensable ally in the search for truth. At times,

there wil be no other way to expose falsehood, to rectify error, to correct distortion or to elicit vitalinformation that would otherwise remain forever concealed.

2 That is why the right of an accused to cross-examine witnesses for the prosecution -- without

significant and unwaranted constraint -- is an essential component of the right to make full answerand defence.

3 The Court of Appeal found in this case that the trial judge had unduly restrcted the right of theaccused to conduct a full and proper cross-examination of the principal Crown witness. We agreewith that finding.

4 We agree as well that the judge's error resulted from his understandable misapplication of thisCour's decision inR. v. Howard, (1989) 1 S.C.R1337. The trial judge considered that he wasbound by Howard to require the appellant to "follow up with substantive evidence" every factualhypothesis defence counsel intended to put to a Crown witness in cross-examination. As the Courof Appeal made plain, this is not the law: Howard did not purort to change the well-establishedrule in this regard, and should not be understood to have added an evidentiar burden to the re-quirement of good faith that has long been considered the governng standard.

S The Cour of Appeal nonetheless concluded that the judge's misapplication of Howard could becured by resort to the harless error proviso of s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code, RS.C. 1985,c. C-46.

6 With respect, we have reached a different conclusion.

7 First, because the trial judge's impugned ruling had an intimidating effect on defence counsel,

disrupted the rhythm of her cross-examinations, and manfestly constrained their scope.

8 Second, because the ruling obliged defence counsel, against her wishes, to call police investiga-tors as her own witnesses. The Crown was then permitted to cross-examine its own officers -- while

Page 5

the appellant, having been obliged by a mistaken ruling to call them, was found to have thereby for-feited his statutory right to address the jury last.

9 In this latter regard, we do not think it necessary to consider here afresh whether it is generally

an advantage to have the last word'. Many able and experienced counsel -- and others -- certinlytake that view. Moreover, the defence, where it calls no witnesses, is given that right by s. 651(3) ofthe Criminal Code. Here, the defence wished to exercise that right and was prevented from doing soby the judge's erroneous ruling in law.

10 For these reasons and those that follow, we have concluded that the trial judge's misapprehen-sion of the governng principles of cross-examination had a fatal impact on the conduct of the de-fence and on the fairness of the triaL.

11 In our respectfu view, the appeal should therefore be allowed and a new trial ordered.

II. Facts

12 On Februar 19, 1999, Stephen Barnaby was viciously beaten by five men with baseball bats,four of them said to have been masked. He was found outside an aparment building, collapsed,shivering, with broken bones and with other severe injures to his head and legs. He had no wallet,no house keys and no identification.

13 Baraby told a unformed offcer, with whom he spoke briefly soon after the attack, that hehad been beaten over a gold chain.

14 Detective Sean Lawson, initially assigned to the case, stated in his "Occurence Report" thatthe attack was believed to be over a drug debt and the victim was being less than truthfL. His suspi-cion in this regard was based on a conversation with Baraby at the hospital, on the ferocity of thebeating, on the fact that Baraby had a drug-related conviction, and on other elements of DetectiveLawson's own preliminar investigation.

15 On the following mornng, referring to the Baraby attck in his "Daily Major" report suma-rizing all serious crimes that had occured during his shift, Detective-Sergeant Ian Ganson wrote:"believed to be (over) a drug debt (...) fuher inquiries". Ganson, it should be noted, never spokedirectly with Baraby. He merely relied, in the usual way, on information he had received fromsubordinate investigators and uniformed officers.

16 Lawson's "Occurrence Report" and Ganson's "Daily Major" report were disclosed to the de-fence in a timely maner, as required by law. See R. v. Stinchcombe, (1991) 3 S.C.R 326.

17 Detective Michael Korb and his parner, Detective Marin Ottaway, took over the investiga-tion the day after the attack and obtained a statement from Baraby at the hospitaL. Korb and Ot-taway were aware of the "drug deal gone bad" theory mentioned by Lawson and Ganson, but bothtestified that it did not infuence their investigation. Unlike Lawson and Ganson, Korb and Ottawaybelieved Baraby's version of the assault and the reasons for it.

18 Baraby, at a photographic line-up, identified the appellant as the unmasked attacker.

III. Proceedings Below

A. Ontario Superior Court of Justice

19 The appellant's trial commenced, before judge and jur, on October 21,1999.

Page 6

20 Crown counsel was aware, from pre-trial discussions, of the defence theory that Baraby'sbeating related to an unpaid drg debt and that he had identified the appellant as his assailant to pro-tect the real offenders -- his associates in a drug ring.

21 Before opening his case, Crown counsel urged the trial judge to prohibit cross-examnationalong these lines in the absence of the "required" evidentiary foundation. In support of its position,the Crown relied on Howard, supra, and stated that neither Lawson nor Ganson would be called asCrown witnesses.

22 Throughout the ensuing voir dire, the trial judge made it clear that, on his view of the law, thedefence could only proceed with its proposed cross-examination if it provided "substantive evi-dence" of its "drug debt" theory. The following exchange is ilustrative:

THE COURT: She is under no obligation at this point to advise as to the natueof her defence or what evidence she intends to call, but the law is quite clear thatif you are making an allegation of that natue and of that substance, that you arerequired then to commit to leading some evidence in that regard. Is that your in-tention, madam, or ... .

MS. ROBB (Defence counsel): Your ... Honour, my friend's well aware of theevidence. I didn't dream this up on my own. The investigating officers, withinmoments at arving at the scene, checked CPIC and made notations to the effectthat they didn't believe this was over a gold chain. They believed it was over adrug deal gone bad. That's where this came from, from the Crown's disclosure.(Emphasis added.)

23 When defence counsel refused to give an undertaking to present an evidentiar foundation forthe proposed cross-examination, the trial judge repeated the constraint he was placing on the cross-examination of Crown witnesses:

MS. ROBB: Well, I mean you have to see my position, Your Honour. I can't in-vestigate, prosecute, and prove Mr. Baraby's a drug dealer. I'm not in a positionto do that. The defence theory is that this man made up Mr. Lytle as the attackerto protect himself from the people that beat him up because he didn't pay themoney for drugs. That's the defence theory.

THE COURT: Well, he can give that evidence, not -- you have no obligation totell us whether you are callng him or not. But I can only tell you the law is that ifyou are going to make those allegations by cross-examining, in the course ofcross-examination of the Crown witnesses, you had better follow up with sub-stantive evidence. That is the law. (Emphasis added.)

24 In his preliminar ruling, later often repeated, the trial judge wared defence counsel that therewas a danger of a mistrial if she put the "drug debt" allegations to the Crown witnesses and thenfailed to provide what he considered to be the necessar evidentiary support :

(THE COURT): The answer is, if you are indicating that the questions are neces-sar to your defence, and that you wil comply with the rule in R. v. Howard, and

Page 7

cases going back as far as Browne and Dunn, then I wil certainly allow you toask them, but there better be the follow-up at some point down the road.

MS. ROBB: All right. At this point when the Crown calls its first witness, re-gardless of follow-up, am I allowed to ask about the CPIC?

THE COURT: Yes. Certainly.

MS. ROBB: So, the only question you're saying I can't ask is to the victim?

THE COURT: I am not -- no, you misunderstood me entirely. I am not sayingyou can or canot ask any questions. It is your case, it is your defence, you con-duct it as you see fit. I am just saying that there wil be strict adherence to therules of evidence, which require that if you ask a question of the natue we havediscussed, that, at some point, you are required to produce some foundation orsubstantive basis for asking that question. You cannot simply pick out of the airan allegation of that nature and hope that it wil persuade the jur. There has tobe factual underpinnng for it. And that if it comes later in the trial, fine, no prob-lem... .

... you have done your duty.

But if it does not come, then you are subject to an application by the Crown for amistraL. (Emphasis added.)

25 Later that same day, the submissions on the defence theory continued. The trial judge settledthe issue by reiterating his previous ruling:

(THE COURT): All right, we are going to handle this in the same way we arehandling the other issue that we discussed at length this morning. You will bepermitted to ask those questions. If you fail to follow-up, and under the R. v.Howard case you are obligated to, I presume by now you have read it. I wilquote, just to deal with that issue briefly, from page (1347) ofthe Judgment byMr. Justice Lamer where he says quite clearly:

"It is not open to the examiner or cross-examiner to put as a fact, or even ahypothetical fact, that which is not and wil not become par of the case asadmissible evidence."

MS. ROBB: Okay, Your Honour ... .

THE COURT: So, there is your directive. If you fail to abide by that directive,there wil be consequences. (i.e., a mistrial) ... .

Page 8

26 Near the end ofthe examination-in-chief of Ottaway, the second Crown witness, defencecounsel expressed concern over the trial judge's ruling and raised the issue of a mistriaL. In the ab-sence ofthe jur, Ms. Robb indicated that she intended to pursue the "drug debt" theory in cross-examination and sought reassurance that in the event the Crown did ask for a mistrial, she would bepermitted to address the cour. The trial judge confirmed that the defence would be given such anopportty and stated:

THE COURT: ... You wil be permitted to ask whatever questions you thnk arerelevant to the defence of your client, and I wil simply apply the rules of evi-dence, if, at some later (time) in the trial, you do not produce substantive evi-dence to -- which, looking back, would have warranted that question and thatsuggestion to the witness. Now, we are going to leave it at that. We are going tobring the jur in. Let us get on with the triaL.

I ask you, before they come in, Ms. Robb, to simply read the decision of Mr. Jus-tice Darichuk in the Manitoba ... Queen's Bench (R. v. Evans (1994),93 Man. R(2d) 77)... . He quite clearly says:

"Does the right of cross-examination encompass the right to assert specificfactual suggestions without confirmation from counsel that the matterssuggested are or wil be par of his or her case, and that evidence wil beled on that subject? I think not."

27 The issue of the foundation for the defence theory arose again during the cross-examination ofOttaway. In order to avoid the possibility of a mistrial should defence counsel not abide by his rul-ing, the trial judge conducted a second voir dire, this time to determine the natue of the facts thatwould in his view warant defence counsel's proposed cross-examination. Ottaway and Lawsonwere called to testify.

28 On the voir dire, the trial judge asked who would call Lawson. Obviously resigned to the trialjudge's treatment of Howard, defence counsel replied, "Well, if my frend is not gonna call OfficerLawson, I wilL."

29 T he trial judge considered that Lawson's testimony would provide what he saw as the "sub-stantive evidence" requirement. And it was on this basis that he ultimately permitted the defence tocross-examine Crown witnesses with respect to its "drg debt" theory.

30 After Ottaway's evidence, and once the jur was excused, the trial judge returned to the evi-dentiar basis for defence counsel's cross-examination:

THE COURT: Just before we leave. Apropos and flowing from my ruling withrespect to cross-examination, Ms. Robb, I noticed ( on) a number of occasionsyou put questions to this witness, 1) inquiring as to whether he'd seen a BMW inthe driveway; 2) whether he checked the owners of all the cars that they took thelicense plates from; 3) with respect to whether they saw a Maxima in the drive-way; 4) whether Ms. Veta Smith had any outstanding charges for importing and5) suggesting that there were many other suspects ... that they investigated. Theseare all questions of the same nature as the one that you wanted to ask with re-

Page 9

spect to the drg deal situation. I assume you are going to be leading evidencewith regard to these varous items or there wil be evidence coming out. Therewas no objection taken by your friend and they are not, of course, as egregious orperhaps as important to your defence as the drug related thing and I've given youthe latitude to ask those questions but, you have a tendency to ask questions, takea no answer. We wonder whether there wil be evidence down the road to sub-stantiate the finding of a BMW, for instance, in the driveway.

MS. ROBB: Well, Your Honour, I got ... (that from the Crown's disclosure).

THE COURT: Technically, under the Rule you can't simply leave that hanging asyou have.

31 When defence counsel later advised the cour that she wished to address the jur last and didnot wish to be forced to forego this right by calling evidence, the trial judge stated:

THE COURT: ... Madam. I'm going to ask you not to use that terminology again.The Crown is not forcing you to call Lawson. The reason I am suggesting youmust call Lawson is because you committed to call Lawson freely during thecourse of a voir dire in which you won the day and your point prevailed to agreat extent upon the commitment you made to the cour that you would callLawson so that you would have the opportity to abide by the Howard principlethat if you are going to cross-examine in this paricular area you have to produce,as the Crown says, "the beer'. (Emphasis added.)

32 Defence counsel then asked the trial judge to himself call Lawson as a witness in accordancewith R. v. Cook, (1997) 1 S.C.R 1113, but the judge refused to do so.

33 As a result, Lawson and Ganson were called by the defence, and the appellant lost his statu-tory right to address the jur last. On cross-examnation by the Crown, Lawson and Ganson de-scribed their "drug debt" suppositions as initial theories or "hunches" which appeared, they said, tohave been disproved by fuher police investigation.

34 The defence did not present any other evidence.

35 The appellant was convicted of robbery, assault causing bodily har, kidnapping and posses-sion of a dangerous weapon.

B. Ontario Court of Appeal (2002),61 O.R (3d) 97

36 On appeal to the Ontario Cour of Appeal, the cour found that the trial judge had erred in ap-plying Howard, but that the verdict could be saved, and the appeal dismissed, by resort to s.686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code.

37 Delivering the judgment ofthe cour, Carhy J.A. concluded (at para. 11) that the broad ruleenunciated by Lamer J. (as he then was) in Howard had no application in the circumstances of thiscase as it was intended to apply only with respect to the cross-examination of expert witnesses:

Lamer J. could not have been intending to lay down a broad rule encom-passing all forms of cross-examination and to be overrling well-established au-

Page 10

thorities of this cour and others without referrng to them. The implications ofsuch a strict rule would pervade and restrict all traditional cross-examinationscontaining any element of speculation.

38 Carhy J.A. found, correctly in our view, that Howard did not overrle R. v. Bencardino(1973), 15 C.C.C. (2d) 342 (Ont. c.A.), which stood for the principle that counsel can cross-examine on matters he or she may not be able to prove directly so long as counsel had a good faithbasis for asking the question. He also referred to R. v. Krause, (1986) 2 S.C.R 466, and noted, atpara. 19, that:

(T)he general rule is for a broad right of cross-examination unconstrained by di-rect relevance to issues and then a narower right, but not a compulsion, to rebutwith fuher evidence if the issue is not collateraL.

39 The Cour of Appeal held that the trial judge had erred in requiring defence counsel to under-take to call evidence to support her "drug debt" theory as a condition for permitting cross-examination on that subject.

40 The cour was satisfied, however, that this error had occasioned no substantial wrong or mis-carage of justice within the meanng ofs. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code and dismissed theappeaL.

iv. Discussion

41 As mentioned at the outset, the right of an accused to cross-examine prosecution witnesseswithout significant and unwaranted constraint is an essential component of the right to make a fullanswer and defence. See R. v. Seaboyer, (1991) 2 S.C.R. 577, at p. 608, per McLachlin J. (as shethen was):

The right of the innocent not to be convicted is dependent on the right topresent full answer and defence. This, in turn, depends on being able to call theevidence necessary to establish a defence and to challenge the evidence called bythe prosecution... . In short, the denial of the right to call and challenge evidenceis tantamount to the denial of the right to rely on a defence to which the law saysone is entitled. (Emphasis added.)

42 In R. v. Osolin, (1993) 4 S.C.R 595, Cory J. reviewed the relevant authorities and, at p. 663,explained why cross-examination plays such an important role in the adversaral process, paricu-larly, though of course not exclusively, in the context of a criminal trial:

There can be no question of the importance of cross-examination. It is ofessential importance in determining whether a witness is credible. Even with themost honest witness cross-examination can provide the means to explore thefrailties of the testimony. For example, it can demonstrate a witness's weakessof sight or hearng. It can establish that the existing weather conditions may havelimited the ability of a witness to observe, or that medication taken by the witnesswould have distorted vision or hearng. Its importance canot be denied. It is theultimate means of demonstrating truth and of testing veracity. Cross-examination

Page 11

must be permitted so that an accused can make full answer and defence. The op-portity to cross-examine witnesses is fudamental to providing a fair trial to anaccused. This is an old and well-established principle that is closely linked to thepresumption of innocence. See R. v. Anderson (1938), 70 C.C.C. 275 (Man.C.A.); R. v. Rewniak (1949),93 C.C.C. 142 (Man. c.A.); Abel v. The Queen(1955), 115 C.C.C. 119 (Que. Q.B.); R. v. Lindlau (1978), 40 C.C.c. (2d) 47(Ont. C.A.).

43 Commensurate with its importance, the right to cross-examine is now recognzed as being pro-tected by ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. See Osolin, supra, at p.665.

44 The right of cross-examination must therefore be jealously protected and broadly construed.But it must not be abused. Counsel are bound by the rules of relevancy and bared from resorting toharassment, misrepresentation, repetitiousness or, more generally, from putting questions whoseprejudicial effect outweighs their probative value. See R. v. Meddoui, (1991) 3 S.C.R. 320; R. v.Logiacco (1984), 11 C.C.C. (3d) 374 (Ont. C.A.); R. v. McLaughlin (1974), 15 C.C.C. (2d) 562(Ont. C.A.); Osolin, supra.

45 Just as the right of cross-examination itself is not absolute, so too are its limitations. Trialjudges enjoy, in this as in other aspects of the conduct of a trial, a broad discretion to ensure fairnessand to see that justice is done -- and seen to be done. In the exercise of that discretion, they maysometimes think it right to relax the rules of relevancy somewhat, or to tolerate a degree of repeti-tion that would in other circumstances be unacceptable. See United Nurses of Alberta v. Alberta (At-torney General), (1992) 1 S.C.R 901, at p. 925.

46 This appeal concerns the constraint on cross-examination arising from the ethical and legalduties of counsel when they allude in their questions to disputed and unproven facts. Is a good faithbasis sufficient or is counsel bound, as the trial judge held in this case, to provide an evidentiarfoundation for the assertion?

47 Unlike the trial judge, and with respect, we believe that a question can be put to a witness incross-examination regarding matters that need not be proved independently, provided that counselhas a good faith basis for putting the question. It is not uncommon for counsel to believe what is infact true, without being able to prove it otherwise than by cross-examination; nor is it uncommonfor reticent witnesses to concede suggested facts -- in the mistaken belief that they are alreadyknown to the cross-examiner and wil therefore, in any event, emerge.

48 In this context, a "good faith basis" is a fuction of the information available to the cross-examiner, his or her belief in its likely accuracy, and the purose for which it is used. Informationfallng short of admissible evidence may be put to the witness. In fact, the information may be in-complete or uncertain, provided the cross-examiner does not put suggestions to the witness reck-lessly or that he or she knows to be false. The cross-examiner may pursue any hypothesis that ishonestly advanced on the strength of reasonable inference, experience or intuition. The purose ofthe question must be consistent with the lawyer's role as an officer of the cour: to suggest whatcounsel genuinely thinks possible on known facts or reasonable assumptions is in our view permis-sible; to assert or to imply in a maner that is calculated to mislead is in our view improper and pro-hibited.

49 In Bencardino, supra, at p. 347, Jessup J.A. applied the English rule to this effect:

Page 12

... whatever may be said about the forensic impropriety of the three incidents incross-examination, I am unable to say any ilegality was involved in them. AsLord Radcliffe said in Fox v. General Medical Council, (1960) 1 W.L.R 1017 atp. 1023:

An advocate is entitled to use his discretion as to whether to put questionsin the course of cross-examination which are based on material which he isnot in a position to prove directly. The penalty is that, ifhe gets a denial orsome answer that does not suit him, the answer stands against him for whatit is worth.

50 More recently, in R. v. Shearing, (2002) 3 S.C.R. 33,2002 SCC 58, while recognizing theneed for exceptional restraint in sexual assault cases, Binne J. reaffirmed, at paras. 121-22, the gen-eral rule that "in most instances the adversarial process allows wide latitude to cross-examiners toresort to unproven assumptions and innuendo in an effort to crack the untruthfl witness ...". Assuggested at the outset, however, wide latitude does not mean unbridled licence, and cross-examination remains subject to the requirements of good faith, professional integrity and the otherlimitations set out above (paras. 44-45). See also Seaboyer, supra, at p. 598; Osolin, supra, at p.665.

51 A trial judge must balance the rights of an accused to receive a fair trial with the need to pre-vent unethical cross-examination. There will thus be instances where a trial judge wil want to en-sure that "counsel (is) not merely takng a random shot at a reputation imprudently exposed or ask-ing a groundless question to waft an unwaranted innuendo into the jur box". See Michelson v.United States, 335 U.S. 469 (1948), at p. 481,per Jackson J.

52 Where a question implies the existence of a disputed factual predicate that is manfestly tenu-ous or suspect, a trial judge may properly take appropriate steps, by conducting a voir dire or oth-erwise, to seek and obtain counsel's assurance that a good faith basis exists for putting the question.If the judge is satisfied in this regard and the question is not otherwise prohibited, counsel should bepermitted to put the question to the witness.

53 Central to the trial judge's ruling in this case was his understandable but mistaken view ofHoward.

54 The Cour of Appeal distinguished Howard on the basis that it applied only to expert wit-nesses.

55 In our respectful opinion, the ratio of Howard has been misunderstood and misapplied. How-ard dealt essentially with the admissibility of evidence. Unfortately, the reasons of Lamer J. havebeen applied beyond their context and the record in this case leaves no doubt that a misapprehen-sion of Howard weighed heavily on the trial of the appellant.

56 In Howard, the accused and his co-accused had been tried jointly and found guilty of first de-

gree murder. The Cour of Appeal concluded that the trial judge had erred in some respects and or-dered a new triaL. The co-accused pleaded guilty to second degree murder prior to the second triaL.At the first trial, both the Crown and defence called footprint experts in order to establish or dis-prove, respectively, that the footprints found beside the body of the victim were those ofthe co-accused, a certain TrudeL.

Page 13

57 At the second trial, before the defence expert testified, the Crown sought the cour's permis-sion to ask the defence expert on cross-examination whether or not the fact that the co-accused hadpleaded guilty to the murder and had accepted a statement of facts that put him at the scene of thecrime would change the expert's opinion that the footprints were not those of the co-accused as hehad testified at the first triaL. The trial judge ruled that the Crown could ask the question. The de-fence chose not to call the expert.

58 The issue was whether or not the Crown was entitled to refer, in cross-examining the defenceexpert, to the guilty plea entered by the co-accused. It is in this context that Howard must be under-stood. The ratio of Howard, at p. 1348, is that counsel should not inject bias into the application ofthe witness's expertise by being told of, and asked to take into account, a fact that is corroborative ofone of the alternatives he is asked to "scientifically determine":

Experts assist the trier of fact in reaching a conclusion by applying a par-ticular scientific skil not shared by the judge or the jur to a set of facts and thenby expressing an opinion as to what conclusions may be drawn as a result. There-fore, an expert canot take into account facts that are not subject to his profes-sional expert assessment, as they are irrelevant to his expert assessment; a forti-ori, as injecting bias into the application of his expertise, he should not be told ofand asked to take into account such a fact that is corroborative of one of the al-ternatives he is asked to scientifically determine. If the Crown experts had beentold by the police when they were retained that Trudel had in fact confessed andthat he acknowledged facts that established that it was his footprint, we would beleft in doubt as to whether their conclusion is a genuine scientific conclusion.This is so because their expertise does not extend to Trudel's credibility, andwhat he admits to is totally irrelevant to what they were asked to do to help theCour, that is apply their scientific knowledge to the relevant "scientific facts",i.e., the moulds, etc.

59 Stated another way, the Crown should not have been authorized to ask the expert to take intoaccount the co-accused's guilty plea or his adoption of the Crown's statement of facts. The Crownhad not called the co-accused as a witness and as Lamer J. later pointed out, at p. 1349, "(a)t thenext trial Trudel may be called, if the Crown so chooses, to testify to these facts that would tend toprove that (the expert) was wrong in his conclusion".

60 The source ofthe confusion in Howard may originate in the following remarks by Lamer J., atp.1347:

The fact that Trudel had pleaded guilty and had acknowledged that thefootprint was his was not at the time the question intended to be put to the expert,and was not going to become, a fact adduced in evidence; nor was it a fact thatcould fairly be inferred from the facts in evidence. It is not open to the examineror cross-examiner to put as a fact, or even a hypothetical fact, that which is notand wil not become par of the case as admissible evidence. (Emphasis added.)

61 The question that the Crown proposed to put to the expert in Howard would have circum-vented the rules of evidence. Trudel had not testified and his guilty plea was not adduced in evi-

Page 14

dence. The question and answer were irrelevant to the validity of the expert's opinion and thereforeinadmissible. There is a crucial difference between questions put on cross-examination that relate toand rely on inadmissible evidence and cross-examination on unproven facts. See P. M. Brauti, "Im-proper Cross-Examination" (1998), 40 Crim. L.Q. 69, at p. 91.

62 Rather than confning Howard to the admissibility of evidence as Finlayson J.A. did in R. v.Norman (1993), 16 O.R (3d) 295 (C.A.), at p. 310, trial and appellate cours, as ilustrated in thisappeal, have not infrequently interpreted Howard as standing for a broad proposition that restrictscross-examination to questions based on facts established in evidence. See R. v. Fiqia (1993), 145A.R 241 (C.A.), at paras. 44-50; R. v. Fickes (1994),132 N.S.R (2d) 314 (C.A.), at paras. 9-10.

63 The conclusion that Howard mandates or authorizes the requirement of an evidentiar founda-tion for every factual suggestion put to a witness (expert or not) in cross-examination is misplaced.Howard canot be invoked for this purose. It is unikely that the Cour intended to add an eviden-tiar requirement to the foundation for cross-examination and thus limit the scope of cross-examination which had been developed by the long history of the common law and accompanyingjursprudence. Howard therefore canot be accepted as an authority beyond the ratio ofthat casewhich concerned the admissibility of certain evidence.

64 The trial judge also made reference to the case of Browne v. Dunn (1893), 6 R 67 (H.L.), assupport for the proposition that an evidentiary foundation is required for questions put in cross-examination. He was mistaen. The rule in Browne v. Dunn requires counsel to give notice to thosewitnesses whom the cross-examiner intends later to impeach. The rationale for the rule was ex-plained by Lord Herschell, at pp. 70-71:

Now, my Lords, I canot help saying that it seems to me to be absolutelyessential to the proper conduct of a cause, where it is intended to suggest that awitness is not speaking the truth on a paricular point, to direct his attention to thefact by some questions put in cross-examination showing that that imputation isintended to be made, and not to take his evidence and pass it by as a matter alto-gether unchallenged, and then, when it is impossible for him to explain, as per-haps he might have been able to do if such questions had been put to him, thecircumstances which it is suggested indicate that the story he tells ought not to bebelieved, to argue that he is a witness unworthy of credit. My Lords, I have al-ways understood that if you intend to impeach a witness you are bound, whilst heis in the box, to give him an opportity of making any explanation which isopen to him; and, as it seems to me, that is not only a rule of professional practicein the conduct of a case, but is essential to fair play and fair dealing with wit-nesses. Sometimes reflections have been made upon excessive cross-examinationof witnesses, and it has been complained of as undue; but it seems to me that across-examination of a witness which errs in the direction of excess may be farmore fair to him than to leave him without cross-examination, and afterwards tosuggest that he is not a witness of truth, I mean upon a point on which it is nototherwise perfectly clear that he has had full notice beforehand that there is an in-tention to impeach the credibility of the story which he is tellng.

65 The rule, although designed to provide fairness to witnesses and the paries, is not fixed. Theextent of its application is within the discretion of the trial judge after tang into account all the cIr-

Page 15

cumstances of the case. See Palmer v. The Queen, (1980) 1 S.C.R 759, at pp. 781-82; J. Sopinka, S.N. Lederman and A. W. Bryant, The Law of Evidence in Canada (2nd ed. 1999), at pp. 954-57. Inany event, the foregoing rule in Browne v. Dunn remains a sound principle of general application,though irrelevant to the issue before the trial judge in this case.

66 As long as counsel has a good faith basis for asking an otherwise permissible question incross-examination, the question should be allowed. In our view, no distinction need be made be-tween expert and lay witnesses within the broad scope of this general principle. Counsel, however,bear important professional duties and ethical responsibilities, not just at trial, but on appeal as well.This point was emphasized by Lord Reid in Rondel v. Worsley, (1969) 1 A.C. 191 (H.L.), at pp.227-28, when he said:

Every counsel has a duty to his client fearlessly to raise every issue, ad-vance every argument, and ask every question, however distasteful, which hethinks wil help his client's case. But, as an officer of the cour concerned in theadministration of justice, he has an overrding duty to the cour, to the standardsof his profession, and to the public, which may and often does lead to a conflictwith his client's wishes or with what the client thinks are his personal interests.Counsel must not mislead the cour, he must not lend himself to casting asper-sions on the other pary or witnesses for which there is no sufficient basis in theinformation in his possession, he must not withhold authorities or documentswhich may tell against his clients but which the law or the standards of his pro-fession require him to produce... . (Emphasis added.)

67 By requiring an evidentiary foundation on the basis of Howard, the trial judge erred in law.Over the course of the two voir dires the existence of a good faith basis for the defence's "drugdebt" theory had, in any event, become apparent. This basis included, but was not limited to, thepolice reports, the complainant Baraby's drug conviction, his admission at the preliminar hearingthat he had dealt in drugs, and the drug conviction of the complainant's acquaintance who drove himto the alleged scene of the attack.

V. Conclusion

68 In order to determine whether there has been no substantial wrong or miscarage of justice asa result of a trial judge's error, an appellate cour must determine "whether there is any reasonablepossibility that the verdict would have been different had the error at issue not been made". See R.v. Bevan, (1993) 2 S.C.R 599, at p. 617.

69 In R. v. Anandmalik (1984),6 O.A.C. 143, at p. 144, the Ontao Cour of Appeal recognizedthat the importance of cross-examination becomes even more critical when credibility is the centralissue in the trial:

In a case where the guilt or innocence of the (accused) largely tured on credibil-ity, it was a serious error to limit the (accused) of his substantial right to fullycross-examine the principal Crown witness. It would not be appropriate in thecircumstances to invoke or apply the curative provisions ofs. 613(I)(b)(iii) (nows.686(1)(b)(iii)).

Page 16

70 The Mantoba Cour of Appeal echoed these sentiments in R. v. Wallck (1990), 69 Man. R(2d) 310, at p. 311:

Cross-examination is a most powerful weapon of the defence, paricularlywhen the entire case tus on credibility of the witnesses. An accused in a crimi-nal case has the right of cross-examination in the fullest and widest sense of theword as long as he does not abuse that right. Any improper interference with theright is an error which wil result in the conviction being quashed.

71 It follows that where, as here, a trial judge improperly interfered with an accused's right tocross-examine, infused a mistrial chil into the proceedings, and placed conditions on a legitimateline of questioning that forfeited the accused's statutory right to address the jur last, a substatial

wrong occurred and an unfair trial resulted.

72 This alone is suffcient to dispose of the appeal in the appellant's favour.

73 Moreover, we are not convinced that, in the absence of the trial judge's error, there is no "rea-sonable possibility that the verdict would have been different". See Bevan, supra, at p. 617.

74 In our respectful view, it would be wrong in these circumstances to apply the curative proviso.

75 We would instead allow the appeal and order a new triaL.

Solicitors:

Solicitors for the appellant: Pinkofskys, Toronto.

Solicitor for the respondent: Attorney General of Ontario, Toronto.

cp/e/qw/qlls

Institute /òr&CivilityProfessionalism

Principles ofCivility

forAdvocates

cumvent the effect of the ruling by other means,

56, In the absence of a jury, a question to a witness by counsel

should not be inten'upted before the question is completed for thepurposes of objection or otherwise, unless the question is patent-ly inappropriate,

Evidence

57, Advocates should never attempt to get before the court evi-dence which is improper. If advocates intend to lead evidenceabout which there may be some question of admissibility, thenthey should alert opposing counsel and the court of that intention.

58. Advocates cannot condone the use of perjured evidence and,if they become aware of perjury at any time, they must immedi-ately seek the client's consent to bring it to the attention of thecourt. Failing that. advocates must withdraw, Nothing is moreantithetical to the role of counsel than to advance the client's casebefore the court, directly or indirectly, on the basis of perjured evi-dence.

59, Advocates. or any member of their firm, should not give evi-dence relating to any contentious issue in a triaL.

Best Trial Practices

60. In trials where they are acting as counsel, advocates shouldnot iake part in any demonstrations or experiments in which theirown person is involved except to illustrate what has already beenadmitted in evidence,

61, Advocates should be considerate of time constraints whichthey have agreed to or which have been imposed by the court.

62, Advocates should not communicate with a judge following ahearing and during deliberation unless specifically invited ordirected to do so, A request for consideration of additional factualor legal material should be brought by motion on notice to oppos-ing counseL.

Any additional legal authority may occasionally be brought to theattention of the judge and opposing counsel at the same time butwithout further comment by counseL.

If there is a request to make further submissions. the judge willdetermine whether further submissions are justified,

63, Advocates who are successful in a case should shake the handof their opponent if ii is offered, They should offer theirs if it isnot. Advocates who lose the case should not whine. Howeverpainful, advocates should offer their hand to their successful

opponent. If the case is reserved and they have lost. they shouldcall their opponent with their congratulations.

COUNSEL'S RELATIONS with THE JUDICIARY

What Judges Can Expectji-mn Advocates

64. Judges are entitled to expect that advocates will treat the courtwith candour. fairness and courtesy,

65. Judges are entitled to expect that advocates appearing are, by

Principles of Cii'ili'y/ár Adi.oaiies 16

''''

25

30

CROSS EXAINATION BY

Q. just to assist us with some of yourscope of practice please. You run a private practice and that's

an outpatient practice at a private office since 1997, correct?

A. Since 1977.

Q. Seventy-seven. Right, 1977 till present.A. Yep.

AG 0087 (rev.07-01)

54.- Cr-ex.

5

Q. And are you at that private practice daily?A. Yes.

Q. Okay, and you have been since 1977?

A. Yeah I would say most daily but, yeah.

Q. Generally.

A. Yeah.

Q. Okay. And generally what type of hours do youkeep there?

A. I would be there three to four hours,

10 sometimes a little less.

Q. You've indicated you also provide assistance

for the residential program

A. Yes.

Q. . .. in Brantford. You're there how many times

15 a week?

A. Twice a week.

Q. How many hours there?

A. Three or four hours.Q. That's been consistent since it opened in, I

20 believe you said ' 88?A. Yes it's....

Q. On average.

A. On average, yeah.

Q. Your involvement as a staff physician with one25 of the hospitals, and I believe there were two hospitals were

there not? There was St. Joe's in Burlington ...

A. Yes.

Q. . .. and there was also ....THE COURT: Excuse me. There's no St. Joseph's in

Burlington.30

You're right, Your Honour, thank you.

Q. St. Joseph Brant here in Hamil ton.

AG 0087 (rev,07-01)

III:~

IF

.'

i: ,'C,,:'..\..,~,

p:'!t.~ ~'''Y:, ,15

55.- Cr-ex.

t" ......

THE COURT: Joseph Brant.& Joseph Brant.THE COURT: ,I don't think he's a saint yet.

I don't think he's a saint yet either,5 Your Honour, thank you.

Q. Joseph Brant here in Hamil ton.A. Yes. St. Joseph' s Hospital in Hamil ton and

Joseph Brant in Burlington.

Q. Okay. I've completely bollixed it up, haven't10 I?

A. Yes.

THE COURT: Nothing turns on it; I just want the

record straight.I want it straight as well, Your

Honour.

I

I

I

I

I

I

III....(

¡.

Q. Surely you would have been aware of the 1999

guidelines when you were practicing in 2003, right? Whether you

25 specifically cited them or not, you would have been aware of

them in 2003, right?

A. Yeah, I think the issue of - there deals with

the issue of psychiatric diagnosis; I'm not sure that it deals

wi th the adequacy or treatment issues.Q. Well hold on. Let's, let's...

THE COURT: I don't understand that.

~ Q. do one question at a time30

AG 0087 (rev,07-01)

~---

II

II

II

.II

.

.

.lII

III

I,II

II

II

108.. b - Cr-ex.

here. The question you haven't answered yet is you were aware

in 2003 when you gave this report of the 1999 guidelines?

A. Yes.

Q. And it was your word, treatment provided. You

5 see that on page six ...

A. Yes.

Q. . .. second paragraph. So it was you who said

the treatment provided was consistent with the standard

psychiatric practice. Those are your words, correct?10 A. Yes.Q. And you made that opinion based on the same

information that Dr. _ had, except. had the benefit ofassessing the patient and you didn't. Fair?

A. Yes.

Q. And you considered the medication at the timethat you gave this opinion, correct?

A. Well I think that that - I think that while it

15

said it was consistent with the standard psychiatric practice, I

don't think it addresses the issue of adequacy of the dosing and

20 maintenance of treatment over time.

Q. Dr. JI you had all those records before

you at the time, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you knew when you were giving this report,

25 you were asked to review the complete medical management in the

context of a civil action against a doctor and you were to

consider whether the doctor's management met the expected

standard of practice. In fact you used the words, standard

practice. You knew that's what your role was. Yes?

A. Yes. Well I think that refers - that section30

was to refer basically that it's the treatments of using

Olanzapine would be a standard practice, but I don't think that

AG 0087 (rev,07-01)

109.2 Cr-ex.

paragraph addressed the issue that it was adequate practice

necessarily, or whether there was an issue of this not being the

proper length of time, or the adequate dosing of that medication

was an issue.5 Q. Okay. So you don't raise an issue of those

concerns. Correct?

A. Not at that time I didn't, no.Q. And what you say on the fourth line of the

paragraph is refused injectable medication in the end10 and was agreeable to oral medication. So you certainly turned

your mind to which medication was on when he left thehospital, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you looked at whether it was effective at15 addressing his symptoms before he left the hospital, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you came to the conclusion that thetreatment met the standard psychiatric' practice at the time.

A. Well....20 Q. That's what you wrote down.

THE COURT: . ~e doesn't want to agree with that,

obviously.A. I think at that time it was not analyzed in

the context of practice guidelines but

I . Q. But it wasn't analyzed in the25

context of where the further issues raised by Mr. S

through your subsequent correspondence, isn't that fairA. That's fair.Q. . . . Dr. .-

30 A. Yes.

Q. So your opinion before the input of Mr.

was that - and the issues raised by the plaintiff; was

AG 0087 (rev,07-01)

.IIIIIIIIII

II

II

II

II

II

II

II

II

II

II

110,. - Cr-ex.

that the treatment met the standard psychiatric practice.

A. Yes. It's. . . .Q. And you were considering that as a clinician

at that time?

5 A. Yes I was.

Q. You knew from your review of the records

during this admission that the team and Dr. .. wanted to

address the issue of housing with 41and ~ family? You knew;"'"

that was an issue?

10 A. Yeah, I saw that.Q. And in this circumstan'ce, the family was

willing to have him home, correct?

A. That's what was reported.

Q. And you'll agree that when a patient is15 legally entitled to leave the hospital, the physician is not in

a position to force the patient to go any particular location on

discharge?A. Correct.Q. And in fact while 4~ was going home at that

20 time it was a desirable long term treatment plan to have the

issue of housing addressed by the ACT team, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And when you gave this opinion, you certainly

understood that the family was of the view that as long as ~..

25 remained on his medications, that they could manage him. You

understood that when you gave this opinion right?

A. Yes. That is what was reported.

Q. There was never any issue of,; ..~ "l~.~':~)'abili ty to make decisions in terms of his medical treatment and

~ his capacity to make those decisions during this hospital

admission, right?A. No, there was no issue of incapacity.

AG 0087 (rev.07-01)

111.- Cr-ex.

Q. And so that meant __ was legallyentitled to decide what kind of medication, what type of

antipsychotic he would take, right?

A. Yes.

Q. SO although the medical team may have had the

view that long term injections may have been preferable, they

couldn't force that on .. legally?

A. No they could not.

Q. And just further to the objective of the10 housing, you'll see on your report, page six in the middle of

5

the page, last sentence - or we'll do second last sentence.

So it's page six, Your Honour, under

the heading, risk evaluations.

THE COURT: This is the report of June the 12 ...Yes.15

THE COURT: . .. 2003.

Yes.THE COURT: Go ahead.

F5 E Q. SO four lines up from the bottom20 on the right hand side:

25

The recommendation was for.. not to

return to live at home which, could

potentially lead to escalation of his

impulsive and threatening behaviours. This

was a desirable long-term treatment plan that

could however not be enforced at that

specific time.

30 That was your opinion at the time?

A. Yes.

Q. And it couldn't be forced on him because heAG 0087 (rev.07-01)

112.- Cr.,"e,x.

was legally capable?

A. Yes.

Q. And he was not certifiable.A. True.

':LI: (~:~

.~

.:t.".'"

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

BY

1340.

1341.

1342.

1343.

Q. The financial situation ofdid not change in any material respect between June

23rd, 2008 and August 20, 2008?

A. No.

Q. No, it did not change in anymaterial respect?

A. Right.

Q. And you understood that when you

swore your June 23rd affidavit you were to make full

and frank disclosure to the court, correct?

A. I did, to the best of my knowledge.

Q. And you said in paragraph 60 of your

affidavit that:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1344.

1345.

1346.

1347.

1348.

1349.

254

" undertakes to abide by any

order concerning damages which this court

may make if it ultimately determines that

the granting of the order sought has caused

damage to the Defendants for which

is liable..."

Do you see that there, in paragraph 60 or your June

23rd, 2008 affidavit?

A. Which one?

Q. June 23rd.

A. Where am I looking?

Q. Paragraph 60.

....~---

A. Yes?

Q. And so at the time that you swore

that paragraph to be true, you in fact knew that

had not paid taxes since 1991, correct?

A. Correct.Q. And that had liabilities

that were larger than its assets; correct?

A. Correct.Q. And financial statements had not

been filed since 1991; correct?

A. Correct.Q. And the corporation was impecunious,

correct?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

1350.

1351.

1352.

1353.

- 255

A. Correct.

Q. And you didn't disclose any of that

to the court, did you?

A. I didn't.

Well, it is obvious he

didn't. ~"..,". ,.-.........."_.~

~..~~~ I do not want you to answer

that question,~ll..;¡~~~:;,..:--~,,;..:.--;,-~-.._~.

~'~#". :' .--_.;;ilThe document speaks for

~..'¿' ..itself,

Please stop. I would like. fuã-e' rz 'Pt" ""ö' -s~ i-qg ..-# - ZZNaZW il? - .

the witness to confirm that he did not tell- -r . .. .' a-aæ'- .. W i"' -- me . m ~&h

the court....: This line of questioning

'BJbN' g' Mm" n.-XW$ Cd- . _

is so ridiculous, I am surprised I am even.- - t" tt eFt--rtmr .

letting you ask the questions. But to the.-

extent the document speaks for itself, itobviously speaks for itself. Move on.- .

I am not going to move on.

And I object to you interfering with my~"'"'i..!,;i- ,-..-.-

cross-examination.~i')',J(:~-,_,-,...-.~\,.,,- '.:;rii"'~J'-¡;22 That is our answer.

Don't answer anything else.23/R

24

25

1354.

~~~Ã.~ii~;~:T,.~~loêi~:

I can't believe you are

going to do that. You would never in a- 1 E-':.nlr¡i.'l"'¡"\~

.. .--- ,

- 256

1 million years do that in front of a Judge,

~:v~,:,~;'~~~_-:""'"~tijt --- SW ,so I don't think you should do it here.

.' .Z' -- .1.2

3 Watch me.

4W '--:E sæ

5 BY

6 1355. Q. Are we agreed, Mr. , that

7 you did not disclose to the court in your June...

8 The document speaks for

9 itself. Don't answer.IR

10 1356. Can you let me finish my11 question, please, ?

12 This is such a ridiculous-., '- .

I am not going to...13 line of questioning.'.14 1357. I don't think you can., 5'( ..

object to a question on the grounds of. '.ridiculousness. So, please be quiet.

15

16 - .1 Z.

17 Well, this document

18 speaks for itself. Move on.

19 1358. I am going to put my

20 question on the record.

21 Put it on the record; we

22 are not answering it.

23

24 BY25 1359. Q. , are we agreed that you

- 257

1 did not, in your June 23rd, 2008 affidavit, disclose

2 to the court that was impecunious and had

3 no ability to actually satisfy the undertaking that

4 you gave to the court in paragraph 60?

5

/RDon't answer that. The

6 document speaks for itself.

7 Well, if the answer is so

8 obvious, why don't you just let him answer

9 it?

10 Because it is such a

11 ridiculous question.

12 We have spent the last

13 five minutes just...

14 Move on.

15 A "Yes" or "No" answer

16 would have sufficed, no?

17 That is right. So, move

18 on.

19 Do you want to tell us

20 the answer?

21 Look at the document. I- ..22 gave her the answer right away. I said no,

~.....,;,.:~¡f"", ¡.~..~_.-. ,. ';:... -',:':-. .-'~.:,_lõ,;i,!~~ -..'.~'l""~':''''I':!-''õ!TJc-¡;.i.,.ir(J~

23 it doesn't, move on, the document speaks

24 for itself.25 So does your client adopt

~'J!~"U~6!!"t~~~~~~~~~.~. ,.___

- 258

1 that answer?

2 Of course he does..-ti.(.~~'í¡ø.x..i;~..!rN rt' j')

3 Do you, ?

4

/R

. 5 .No, don i t answer. Just

. ntV U" T -_. !w r r.5 move on. You guys are being absolutely

6_ '&tlWSifW'-.-' 'br.-te-'? - --MY' 't NU, +p.r,)?tiMt.ridiculous._ st'SC"-g' ,.