Wood v. Schaeffer

Wood v. Schaeffer

Interpreting O. Reg. 267/10 purposively and in its legislative context, s.7(1) does not entitle subject or witness officers to consult with counsel before completing and filing their police notes because allowing such consultations would undermine the regulation's purpose of independent and transparent SIU investigations, create an appearance problem due to privilege, and risk shifting notes from an independent contemporaneous record to counsel-influenced justificatory statements; officers may consult counsel after notes are completed and filed with the chief of police.

Citation
2013 SCC 71
Parties
Appellants / Respondents on Cross Appeal: Police Constable Kris Wood; Acting Sergeant Mark Pullbrook; Police Constable Graham Seguin; Respondents / Appellants on Cross Appeal: Ruth Schaeffer; Evelyn Minty; Diane Pinder; Respondent / Appellant on Cross Appeal: Ian Scott, Director of the Special Investigations Unit; Respondent / Respondent on Cross Appeal: Julian Fantino, Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal and Cross Appeal From Ontario Court of Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada / Final Judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada (2013 SCC 71)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Right to Counsel Under Regulation, Duty to Make Police Notes, Special Investigations Unit Procedures, Solicitor Client Privilege, Public Confidence in Policing
Source Language
English
Police Law Administrative Law Statutory Interpretation Criminal Procedure Constitutional Law Right to Counsel Under Regulation Duty to Make Police Notes Special Investigations Unit Procedures +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Police Constable Kris Wood; Acting Sergeant Mark Pullbrook; Police Constable Graham Seguin

Appellants / Respondents on Cross Appeal

Ruth Schaeffer; Evelyn Minty; Diane Pinder

Respondents / Appellants on Cross Appeal

Ian Scott, Director of the Special Investigations Unit

Respondent / Appellant on Cross Appeal

Julian Fantino, Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police

Respondent / Respondent on Cross Appeal

Procedural Posture

Appeal and Cross Appeal From Ontario Court of Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada / Final Judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada (2013 SCC 71)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether O. Reg. 267/10 s.7(1) entitles police officers to consult counsel before preparing their incident notes
  2. 2 Whether officers are entitled to basic legal advice prior to completing notes
  3. 3 Interaction between s.7(1) entitlement to counsel and s.9 duty to make notes

Ratio Decidendi

Interpreting O. Reg. 267/10 purposively and in its legislative context, s.7(1) does not entitle subject or witness officers to consult with counsel before completing and filing their police notes because allowing such consultations would undermine the regulation's purpose of independent and transparent SIU investigations, create an appearance problem due to privilege, and risk shifting notes from an independent contemporaneous record to counsel-influenced justificatory statements; officers may consult counsel after notes are completed and filed with the chief of police.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed

Orders

  • Declaration: The Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15, s. 113(9), and the regulation regarding Conduct and Duties of Police Officers Respecting Investigations by the Special Investigations Unit, O. Reg. 267/10, prohibit subject and witness officers from consulting with counsel until the officers have completed...
  • Motion to strike brought by the SIU Director granted.