|
Judges - Integrity. R. v. Labelle
In R. v. Labelle (Ont CA, 2026) the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed a criminal appeal, here brought against convictions for "three counts of possession of a Schedule I substance for the purpose of trafficking under s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19 and one count of possession of proceeds of crime over $5,000 under s. 354(1)(4) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46".
Here the court considers the 'presumption of integrity' that applies to judges:[43] Judges benefit from a presumption of integrity when their reasons are challenged. The test to displace the presumption of integrity is high, as it calls into question the integrity of the trial judge and the administration of justice. To rebut the presumption of integrity, the appellant must present cogent evidence to demonstrate that an informed and reasonable observer would think that the reasons are an after-the-fact justification for the decision rather than an articulation of the reasoning that led to the decision: R. v. Arnaout, 2015 ONCA 655, 127 O.R. (3d) 241, at paras. 18-19, 23, leave to appeal refused [2016] S.C.C.A. No. 51.
[44] As noted above, the trial judge rendered brief oral reasons subject to minor revisions, and written reasons which were provided later. In her oral reasons she stated there was a four-to-five-minute gap between the appellant’s arrest and the police advising him of his right to counsel, while in the written reasons she found the gap was two minutes. In doing so, the trial judge noted that there was a conflict in the evidence but that she preferred the evidence of the two witnesses who were at the scene.
[45] The trial judge was entitled to clarify her reasons upon reviewing the record. There is no evidence of improper after‑the‑fact justification.
[46] The discrepancy between a two‑minute and four‑to‑five‑minute delay does not rebut the presumption of judicial integrity. The trial judge found that in either scenario, in the circumstances here, the appellant was advised of his right to counsel “without delay” as required by ss. 10(a) and (b). The difference is immaterial and does not affect the outcome.
[47] For these reasons, the appellant has not displaced the presumption of integrity, and I reject this ground of appeal.
|
