R. v. Campeau (D.J.), 2015 ABCA 210

R. v. Campeau (D.J.) (2015), 602 A.R. 140; 647 W.A.C. 140 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] A.R. TBEd. JN.103

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Derek Joseph Campeau (appellant)

(1301-0342-A; 2015 ABCA 210)

Indexed As: R. v. Campeau (D.J.)

Alberta Court of Appeal

Côté, Watson and O'Ferrall, JJ.A.

June 18, 2015.

Summary:

The accused was convicted of manslaughter as a party to a robbery and killing. The accused appealed, arguing that the trial judge erred in admitting evidence obtained in a "Mr. Big" operation (i.e., evidence of a conversation between an accomplice who was a leading participant in the robbery and killing of the victim, and undercover police officers). The accused also argued that the verdict of manslaughter was unreasonable and not supported by the evidence.

The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The impugned evidence was admissible and the verdict was reasonable.

Criminal Law - Topic 5337.1

Evidence and witnesses - Confessions and voluntary statements - Admissibility - "Mr. Big" confessions - The accused was convicted of manslaughter as a party to a robbery and killing - The accused appealed, arguing that the trial judge erred in admitting evidence obtained in a "Mr. Big" type operation (i.e., evidence of a conversation between an accomplice who was a leading participant in the crime and undercover police officers) - The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - The court noted that this case differed from Mr. Big cases that involved a confession from the accused himself - However, there was no "very clear ground of policy or law" in the facts in this case that dictated exclusion either in the law of hearsay or the recent law as to confessions during Mr. Big operations - It was not adjudicatively unfair to introduce the evidence against the accused - See paragraphs 6 to 22.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Briscoe (M.E.) et al., [2010] 1 S.C.R. 411; 400 N.R. 216; 477 A.R. 86; 483 W.A.C. 86; 2010 SCC 13, refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. Hart (N.L.), [2014] 2 S.C.R. 544; 461 N.R. 1; 353 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 222; 1099 A.P.R. 222; 2014 SCC 52, refd to. [paras. 6, 29].

R. v. Mack (D.R.), [2014] 3 S.C.R. 3; 462 N.R. 380; 580 A.R. 41; 620 W.A.C. 41; 2014 SCC 58, refd to. [paras. 6, 29].

R. v. Khela (G.S.), [2009] 1 S.C.R. 104; 383 N.R. 279; 265 B.C.A.C. 31; 446 W.A.C. 31; 2009 SCC 4, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Hammadieh (W.) (2008), 425 A.R. 333; 418 W.A.C. 333; 2008 ABCA 35, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Chau (J.D.) (2010), 477 A.R. 326; 483 W.A.C. 326; 2010 ABCA 86, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Hillgardener (A.R.) (2010), 477 A.R. 200; 483 W.A.C. 200; 252 C.C.C.(3d) 486; 2010 ABCA 80, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Khelawon (R.), [2006] 2 S.C.R. 787; 355 N.R. 267; 220 O.A.C. 338; 2006 SCC 57, refd to. [paras. 14, 29].

R. v. Bradshaw (R.D.N.) (2015), 372 B.C.A.C. 77; 640 W.A.C. 77; 2015 BCCA 195, dist. [para. 15]; refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Sanelli, Duarte and Fasciano, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 30; 103 N.R. 86; 37 O.A.C. 322; 65 D.L.R.(4th) 240, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Corbett, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 670; 85 N.R. 81; 41 C.C.C.(3d) 385, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Seaboyer and Gayme, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 577; 128 N.R. 81; 48 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Maybin (M.L.) et al., [2012] 2 S.C.R. 30; 430 N.R. 33; 321 B.C.A.C. 83; 547 W.A.C. 83; 2012 SCC 24, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. McMaster (R.A.) et al., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 740; 194 N.R. 278; 181 A.R. 199; 116 W.A.C. 199, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Biniaris (J.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 381; 252 N.R. 204; 134 B.C.A.C. 161; 219 W.A.C. 161; 2000 SCC 15, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Clark (D.M.), [2005] 1 S.C.R. 6; 329 N.R. 10; 208 B.C.A.C. 6; 344 W.A.C. 6; 2005 SCC 2, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Campbell (K.A.) (2015), 599 A.R. 142; 643 W.A.C. 142; 2015 ABCA 70, refd to. [para. 24].

Counsel:

J. Hawkes, Q.C., for the respondent;

P.J. Milczarek, for the appellant.

This appeal was heard on May 5, 2015, before Côté, Watson and O'Ferrall, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal. The memorandum of judgment of the court was delivered on June 18, 2015, including the following opinions:

Côté and Watson, JJ.A. - see paragraphs 1 to 26;

O'Ferrall, J.A. (concurring in the result) - see paragraphs 27 to 35.