Wednesday: What’s Hot on CanLII

Each Wednesday we tell you which three English-language cases and which French-language case have been the most viewed* on CanLII and we give you a small sense of what the cases are about.

For this last week:

1. R. v. Hart, 2014 SCC 52

[1] When conventional investigations fail to solve serious crimes, police forces in Canada have sometimes used the “Mr. Big” technique. A Mr. Big operation begins with undercover officers luring their suspect into a fictitious criminal organization of their own making. Over the next several weeks or months, the suspect is befriended by the undercover officers. He is shown that working with the organization provides a pathway to financial rewards and close friendships. There is only one catch. The crime boss — known colloquially as “Mr. Big” — must approve the suspect’s membership in the criminal organization.

[2] The operation culminates with an interview-like meeting between the suspect and Mr. Big. During the interview, Mr. Big brings up the crime the police are investigating and questions the suspect about it. Denials of guilt are dismissed, and Mr. Big presses the suspect for a confession. As Mr. Big’s questioning continues, it becomes clear to the suspect that by confessing to the crime, the big prize — acceptance into the organization — awaits. If the suspect does confess, the fiction soon unravels and the suspect is arrested and charged.

[3] This case provides us with an opportunity to take an in-depth look at Mr. Big confessions and the principles that should govern their admissibility. While such operations have a long history in this country, courts have yet to create a legal framework that addresses the unique issues which accompany such confessions. As we undertake that task in this case, we must strive to achieve a just balance — one which guards against the risk of wrongful convictions that stem from false confessions but which ensures the police are not deprived of the opportunity to use their skill and ingenuity in solving serious crimes.

2. Pomfret et. al. v. Van Vugt et. al., 2014 BCPC 167

[28] The more difficult problem which the Defendants raise is whether or not the Small Claims has the jurisdiction to hear a claim alleging a violation of CSC policy, and whether the court can award damages if such a violation is proven? On behalf of the Claimants, both Mr. Pomfret and Mr. Bell have clearly stated that their cause of action comes from a violation of policy, not any sort of breach. It is acknowledged that the Claimants and Defendants are not parties to any contract with one another.

[29] Section 3(1) of the Small Claims Act provides that this court has jurisdiction to hear claims within the court’s monetary limit of $25,000 that are for:

(a) debt or damages;

(b) recovery of personal property;

(c) specific performance of an agreement relating to personal property or services; or

(d) relief from opposing claims to personal property.

[30] A claim against a CSC employee because that person has violated policy clearly does not fall within the last three of these. The claims have nothing to do with personal property, and there is no agreement between the parties, so the remedy of specific performance is not available here. An order for specific performance is a court order that requires a party who is in breach of a contract to perform what was promised in the contract. Specific performance can be ordered only in cases where damages are an inadequate remedy. There are two glaring reasons why these actions are not ones for which subsection 3(1)(c) applies: (1) there is no contract between each claimant and defendant, and (2) the Claimants are asking for $25,000 in damages and therefore the claims are ones for which the Claimants believe that damages is an adequate remedy.

3. Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9

[1] This appeal calls on the Court to consider, once again, the troubling question of the approach to be taken in judicial review of decisions of administrative tribunals. The recent history of judicial review in Canada has been marked by ebbs and flows of deference, confounding tests and new words for old problems, but no solutions that provide real guidance for litigants, counsel, administrative decision makers or judicial review judges. The time has arrived for a reassessment of the question.

The most-consulted French-language decision was R. v. Hart, 2014 SCC 52

[1] Lorsqu’une enquête traditionnelle ne permet pas de résoudre un crime grave, les forces policières canadiennes recourent parfois à la technique appelée « Monsieur Big » (en anglais, Mr. Big). L’opération s’amorce par le piège que tendent au suspect des agents banalisés en l’amenant à se joindre à une organisation criminelle fictive de leur cru. Pendant plusieurs semaines ou plusieurs mois, le suspect se lie d’amitié avec les agents. On lui fait valoir que travailler pour l’organisation donne accès à des avantages financiers et permet de créer des liens d’amitié étroits. Il n’y a qu’un seul hic : le chef du gang — familièrement appelé Monsieur Big — décide de l’admission d’un nouveau membre au sein de l’organisation criminelle.

[2] Le candidat est finalement convoqué par Monsieur Big à une sorte d’entretien où ce dernier lui parle du crime sous enquête policière et l’interroge à ce sujet. Monsieur Big écarte toute dénégation de culpabilité et exhorte le suspect à passer aux aveux. Au fil des questions posées par son interlocuteur, il devient évident au suspect que, s’il avoue le crime, il remportera le gros lot, soit une place au sein de l’organisation. Dès lors qu’il y a aveu, l’opération prend rapidement fin, puis le suspect est arrêté et inculpé.

[3] La présente affaire nous donne l’occasion d’approfondir la question de l’aveu issu d’une opération Monsieur Big et de dégager les principes qui devraient régir son admissibilité. Le recours à pareille opération au pays ne date pas d’hier, mais les cours de justice n’ont pas encore établi un cadre juridique qui tient compte des difficultés particulières que comporte l’aveu obtenu. Puisque nous entreprenons de le faire en l’espèce, il nous faut rechercher un juste équilibre qui prévient le risque de déclaration de culpabilité injustifiée inhérent à un aveu infondé, mais qui n’empêche pas la police de mettre à profit son habileté et son ingéniosité pour résoudre un crime grave.

* As of January 2014 we measure the total amount of time spent on the pages rather than simply the number of hits; as well, a case once mentioned won’t appear again for three months.