R. v. Van Haarlem
- Citation
- [1992] 1 SCR 982
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 27 April 1992
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal (charter) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, as of Right
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 27 April 1992
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal (charter) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, as of Right
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
Admission of the accused's conversation with the constable did not violate the s.7 right to silence, and the Court of Appeal properly admitted the conversation and ordered a new trial because the conversation might reasonably have affected the verdict.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed; decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal stands.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- New trial ordered
- Conversation between the appellant and Constable McGimpsey to be admitted as evidence at retrial
02
Material facts
Parties
Gordon John Van Haarlem
Appellant Counsel: Brian A. BereshHer Majesty The Queen
Respondent Counsel: William F. EhrckeAmounts and remedies
- Case Number: 22,492
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal (charter) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, as of Right
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether admission of the accused's conversation with a constable violated the accused's s.7 right to silence
- 02
Whether the British Columbia Court of Appeal erred in admitting the conversation and ordering a new trial
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellant argued that admission of his conversation with Constable McGimpsey violated his right to silence under s.7 of the Charter and that the evidence should have been excluded so as to prevent prejudice to the verdict.
- Respondent
- The Crown argued that no s.7 violation occurred, that the conversation was properly admissible, and that the Court of Appeal correctly ordered a new trial because the conversation might have affected the verdict.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s.7
The right to silence is protected under s.7 of the Canadian Charter and must be assessed in relation to admission of compelled or coerced statements.
- 02
British Columbia Court of Appeal decision (1991), 64 C.C.C. (3d) 543, 135 N.R. 379
Evidence that may have affected the verdict with a reasonable degree of certainty justifies ordering a new trial.
- 03
R. v. Van Haarlem, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 982
Appellate courts may admit evidence and order a new trial where appellate review shows potential prejudice to the original verdict.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
Admission of the accused's conversation with the constable did not violate the s.7 right to silence, and the Court of Appeal properly admitted the conversation and ordered a new trial because the conversation might reasonably have affected the verdict.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed; decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal stands.
- Appeal dismissed
- New trial ordered
- Conversation between the appellant and Constable McGimpsey to be admitted as evidence at retrial
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of Canada · 27 April 1992
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Supreme Court of Canada
Judgment· 27 April 1992
R. v. Van Haarlem Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1992-04-27 Report [1992] 1 SCR 982 Case number 22492 Judges La Forest, Gérard V.; Gonthier, Charles Doherty; McLachlin, Beverley; Stevenson, William; Iacobucci, Frank On appeal from British Columbia Subjects Constitutional law Notes SCC Case Information: 22492 Decision Content R. v. Van Haarlem, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 982 Gordon John Van Haarlem Appellant v. Her Majesty The Queen Respondent Indexed as: R. v. Van Haarlem File No.: 22492. 1992: April 27. Present: La Forest, Gonthier, McLachlin, Stevenson and Iacobucci JJ. on appeal from the court of appeal for british columbia Constitutional law ‑‑ Charter of Rights ‑‑ Fundamental justice ‑‑ Right to silence ‑‑ Evidence of accused's conversation with constable ‑‑ Court of Appeal's order to admit evidence not violating accused's s. 7 right to silence ‑‑ New trial properly ordered ‑‑ Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 7 . Statutes and Regulations Cited Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 7 . APPEAL from a judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal (1991), 64 C.C.C. (3d) 543, 135 N.R. 379, allowing an appeal from acquittal by Oppal J. Appeal dismissed. Brian A. Beresh, for the appellant. William F. Ehrcke, for the respondent. The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by //La Forest J.// La Forest J. -- It will not be necessary to hear from you Mr. Ehrcke.
The Court is ready to hand down judgment. The judgment will be pronounced by Justice Iacobucci. //Iacobucci J.// Iacobucci J. -- We are all of the view that this appeal, which comes to us as of right, should be dismissed. We agree with the British Columbia Court of Appeal that the appellant's right to silence under s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was not violated in this case, and that the Court of Appeal committed no error either in concluding that the appellant's conversation with Constable McGimpsey should have been admitted as evidence or in ordering a new trial on the ground that the conversation might, with a reasonable degree of certainty, have affected the verdict. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Judgment accordingly. Solicitors for the appellant: Beresh DePoe Cunningham, Edmonton. Solicitor for the respondent: The Attorney General of British Columbia, Victoria.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.