R v Bonnick

R. v. Bonnick

[2003] O.J. No. 4297
Ontario Court of Justice — Lampkin J. | August 28, 2003

Background

Leo Bonnick was charged with failing to stop at a red light after a serious three-vehicle collision at Highway 7 and Cosburn Street in Markham. A dump truck had smashed through the intersection, hitting Theresa Mak's Toyota Corolla and then colliding with Terry O'Loane's Nissan Maxima. When Constable Andrew Lo arrived at the scene, he testified that the driver of the dump truck identified himself as Leo Bonnick and produced a valid Ontario driver's licence.

At trial, Bonnick represented himself initially. During cross-examination of the Crown witnesses, he made several statements identifying himself as the dump truck driver — telling witness Theresa Mak "I drove a dump truck," asking witness Terry O'Loane about "coming out of my truck," and making similar admissions to other witnesses. However, when defence counsel later appeared and brought a motion for directed verdict, the Justice of the Peace ruled that the police officer's identification evidence was inadmissible because no voir dire had been held to determine if Bonnick's statement to the officer was voluntary. Without that evidence, the JP found insufficient proof of identity and acquitted Bonnick.

Issues

1. Whether a voir dire is required in Provincial Offences Act cases to determine the voluntariness of statements made to persons in authority
2. Whether there was sufficient evidence of identity without the officer's testimony to put the defendant to his election

The Voir Dire Requirement

The Crown argued that provincial offences are civil in nature and shouldn't require the same strict voir dire procedures as criminal cases. They relied on the 1978 Supreme Court decision in R. v. City of Sault Ste. Marie, which described regulatory offences as "civil in nature" with "limited application" of criminal law principles.

However, Justice Lampkin noted a conflicting 2001 Supreme Court pronouncement in R. v. 974649 Ontario Inc., where Chief Justice McLachlin stated that provincial offences courts are "quasi-criminal courts" that are "more criminal than civil in nature." Lampkin concluded that once imprisonment becomes a possible penalty (as it does under Part III of the POA), statements to persons in authority must be proven voluntary through a voir dire. He extended this rule to all provincial offences for consistency, reasoning that "they are all provincial offences and should be subject to the same rules of evidence."

The Identity Evidence

While upholding the voir dire requirement, Justice Lampkin found the Crown's alternative argument succeeded. Even without the officer's inadmissible testimony, there was sufficient evidence of identity from Bonnick's own admissions during cross-examination. The court noted that Bonnick had explicitly told witnesses "I drove a dump truck" and "I came out of my truck," and there was no evidence of any other dump truck being involved in the accident. This evidence, if believed, could support a conviction on the balance of probabilities standard required for directed verdict applications.

Key Takeaway

Provincial offences require voir dires for statements to police, but defendants can still convict themselves through unguarded admissions in court.

Self-represented defendants should understand that while police statements need proper voir dires, anything you say during cross-examination becomes evidence against you. Even when represented by counsel, earlier admissions made while self-represented can come back to haunt you.