R. v. Lecuyer
The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal because the trial judge's rulings that ss.8 and 9 Charter rights were breached were without factual or legal foundation; the consequential exclusion under s.24(2) was therefore vacated and the matter was remitted for a new trial.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2017 NLCA 72
- Parties
- Appellant: Her Majesty the Queen; Respondent: Andre Lecuyer
- Court
- Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 8 December 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision (memorandum of Disposition) Remitting Matter for New Trial
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; trial judge's findings of ss.8 and 9 breaches and exclusion under s.24(2) vacated; matter remitted for a new trial
- Legal Topics
- Section 8 Unreasonable Search and Seizure, Section 9 Arbitrary Detention, Section 24(2) Exclusion of Evidence, Pre Trial Charter Application, Vacatur and Remittal
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Her Majesty the Queen
Appellant
Andre Lecuyer
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision (memorandum of Disposition) Remitting Matter for New Trial
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial judge correctly found breaches of ss.8 and 9 of the Charter
- 2 Whether evidence should have been excluded under s.24(2) of the Charter
- 3 Whether there was sufficient factual basis for the trial judge's findings
Ratio Decidendi
The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal because the trial judge's rulings that ss.8 and 9 Charter rights were breached were without factual or legal foundation; the consequential exclusion under s.24(2) was therefore vacated and the matter was remitted for a new trial.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; trial judge's findings of ss.8 and 9 breaches and exclusion under s.24(2) vacated; matter remitted for a new trial
Orders
- Appeal allowed
- Rulings respecting breaches of ss.8 and 9 vacated
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR COURT OF APPEAL Citation: R. v. Lecuyer, 2017 NLCA 72 Date: December 8, 2017 Docket: 201601H0071 BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN APPELLANT AND: ANDRE LECUYER RESPONDENT Coram: Harrington, Hoegg and O’Brien JJ.A. Court Appealed From: Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador Trial Division (G) 201504G0184 (2016 NLTD(G) 123) Appeal Heard: December 8, 2017 Decision Rendered (Orally): December 8, 2017 Memorandum of Disposition Filed: December 13, 2017 Counsel for the Appellant: Lisa Stead Counsel for the Respondent: Derek Hogan Corrected Decision: The text of the original judgement was corrected on December 18, 2017. A description of the correction is appended. Page: 2 MEMORANDUM OF DISPOSITION Hoegg J.A.: [1] Andrew Lecuyer was charged with unlawful confinement, armed robbery, having his face masked with intent to commit an indictable offence and break and entry. After he was committed to stand trial, he filed a pre- trial application alleging breaches of his Charter rights and requesting evidence be consequentially excluded. The trial Judge allowed the application, finding that Mr. Lecuyer’s section 8 and 9 Charter rights had been breached and excluding evidence under section 24(2). [2] The Crown appealed on the basis that there was insufficient evidence upon which the trial judge could find the breaches and also that he failed to analyze and decide the issues according to law. Mr. Lecuyer agreed that the appeal should be allowed. [3] After considering the record and the written and oral submissions of Crown and defence counsel, the panel agreed to allow the appeal on the basis that the trial judge’s rulings on the Charter breaches are without foundation in fact and law. Accordingly, the trial judge’s rulings respecting breaches of Mr. Lecuyer’s section 8 and 9 Charter rights and his consequential ruling to exclude evidence under section 24(2) are vacated and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court Trial Division for a new trial. Page: 3 Correction Notice: Correction made on December 18, 2017: 1. On the title page the names of counsel were transposed and have been corrected to read: Counsel for the Appellant: Lisa Stead Counsel for the Respondent: Derek Hogan _________________________ L. R. Hoegg J.A.