R v Naces

R. v. Naces

[2001] O.J. No. 3854
Ontario Court of Justice — Horkins J. | September 7, 2001

Background

Virginia Naces crashed her BMW at the intersection of Jarvis Street and Mount Pleasant Boulevard in Toronto around 8:30 p.m. on March 5th, 2000. The accident knocked down a traffic light standard, and debris was scattered across the roadway. When P.C. Roach arrived at the scene, he found Naces with classic signs of impairment — she was unsteady on her feet, had glassy eyes, and smelled of alcohol.

The officer asked Naces what happened, and she admitted the car was hers and that she had hit a pole. When questioned further, she revealed she had been drinking beer at a bar in the Isabella and Yonge area about an hour before the accident. Roach arrested her for impaired driving, read her rights, and made a breathalyzer demand. The breath test showed a blood-alcohol level of 120 mg per 100 ml of blood — over the legal limit.

Issues

1. Were Naces' roadside statements admissible as evidence against her?
2. Did the officer's questioning violate her Charter right against self-incrimination?

The Charter Protection Against Self-Incrimination

This case turned on a crucial principle from the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. White: when someone makes statements because they believe they are legally required to do so, those statements cannot be used against them in court. Section 7 of the Charter protects people from being compelled to incriminate themselves.

The key was Naces' state of mind. She testified that she felt compelled to answer the officer's questions specifically because he was a uniformed police officer. She believed she had an obligation to respond to his questions. The court found this belief was both honest and reasonable — most drivers have at least a vague understanding that they have duties to report accident details to police.

The judge distinguished this case from situations where someone voluntarily gives a statement after an accident. Here, Naces wasn't freely choosing to speak — she was responding to what she perceived as legal compulsion. As Justice Iacobucci noted in White, roadside statements after accidents are "exactly the type of communication that the principle against self-incrimination is designed to protect" because they reveal personal details about events, emotions, and decisions.

Key Takeaway

If you make incriminating statements to police because you believe you're legally required to answer, those statements should be excluded from evidence.

The critical factor is your honest belief that you had no choice but to respond. If you can show you felt compelled to speak rather than freely choosing to do so, the Charter may protect you from having your own words used against you in court.