R v Ector, 2018 SKCA 46
[48] To be clear, the s. 10(b) right embraces the right to speak with legal counsel and not to a non-lawyer. That said, the law also recognizes that the right to retain and instruct counsel includes the right to contact third parties for the purpose of obtaining counsel. Thus, where the detainee expresses a desire to speak with a third party for purposes of obtaining the name of legal counsel, and there are no investigative concerns arising from that request, denial of the right to access the third party may constitute a s. 10(b) breach (Tremblay; R v LaPlante (1987), 1987 CanLII 209 (SK CA), 40 CCC (3d) 63 (Sask CA); R v Menard, 2010 BCSC 1416 at para 46, 11 BCLR (5th) 162; R v Blake, 2015 ONCA 684 at para 14; R v Ferris, 2014 SKPC 6 at paras 27–31 [Ferris]).
[49] The right to speak with a third party to obtain the name of counsel is not absolute and it, too, is fact dependent. This point was explained in R v Kumarasamy, [2002] OJ No 303 (QL) (Sup Ct):
[26] This is not to say that a detainee is always entitled to make one or a series of calls to friends or relatives. The determination must be made on a case by case basis. No doubt there will be rare cases where a call to a friend or relative in private could jeopardize an ongoing investigation. For example, if the detainee has accomplices who had not been arrested, or if persons or property could be placed in jeopardy by permitting a call to someone other than a lawyer, a delay might be justified. That is not the case here.
Aucun commentaire:
Publier un commentaire