The Right to Counsel

Posted: May 31, 2023
By: The Law Firm of Ted Yoannou

 

Section 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees you the right to speak with a lawyer (counsel) before answering the police questions once arrested or detained.[1] Where evidence is collected in breach of your right to counsel, it may be held inadmissible and excluded from legal proceedings.[2]

What Obligations Does Your Right to Counsel Place on The Police?

The right to counsel places a number of obligations on the police. Firstly, the police must inform you of your right to counsel immediately when they detain you.[3] Although delays may be allowed in exceptional circumstances where the safety of officers or the public is concerned, the courts are stringent about the type of limits that are justified.[4] For example, the police may delay informing you of your right to counsel during a traffic stop in order to conduct roadside sobriety tests, but only as long as would reasonably be necessary to determine whether they have the grounds to request a breath sample (at which point they must inform you of your rights).[5]

Beyond just informing you that you have the right to counsel, the police must also ensure that you understand it. While the police are permitted to infer that you understand from the circumstances, they must take steps to clarify your understanding if they have reason to believe it is insufficient.[6] In particular, where there is evidence of a language barrier, the police must also inform you of the right to speak to counsel in another language and may be required to explain your rights through an interpreter or an officer that speaks your language.[7]

Second, the police must provide you with a reasonable opportunity to exercise your right to counsel. This includes providing you with access to a phone and providing privacy for you to speak with counsel.[8]

Third, the police have a duty to refrain from further questioning or attempts to elicit incriminating evidence until you speak with a lawyer.[9] This comes with the exception that the police may still ask some preliminary questions to determine how to proceed with their investigation, such as asking you to identify yourself.[10]

Finally, the police must offer you another consultation with counsel if a change in circumstances significantly alters the choice you face of whether and how to cooperate with their investigation.[11] Examples include the addition of new procedures that your lawyer may not have been aware of at the time of your initial consultation, new charges being laid against you, or where there are objective reasons for the police to believe that you do not understand your rights after speaking with counsel.[12]

Does This Place Any Obligations On You?

For practical reasons, the police are only bound by these obligations if you make a diligent, good-faith effort to contact counsel.[13] You have the right to choose which lawyer you would like to speak with and you are entitled to wait a reasonable amount of time for them to respond.[14] However, you may be expected to seek another lawyer if the delay becomes unreasonable.[15] Similarly to the police duty to immediately inform you of your right to counsel, what is considered reasonable is determined by the context. Relevant factors include the urgency of the investigation and the seriousness of your charges.[16]

 

**This article was provided by law student Jason Ruggeberg. It is intended for general information purposes only, and not as specific legal advice.**

 


[1] Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s 10(b), Part 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11; Unlike in the United States, this does not guarantee the right to have a have a lawyer present throughout a the police interview, although the police may consent to counsel being present, see  R v Sinclair, 2010 SCC 35 at para 34-38 [Sinclair]

[2] R v Grant, 2009 SCC 32

[3] R v Suberu, 2009 SCC 33 at para 41-42 [Suberu]

[4] Ibid at para 42

[5] R v Woods, [2005] 2 S.C.R. 205 at para 34-36; R v Orbanski, 2005 SCC 37 at para 49; see also R v Côté, 1992 CarswellOnt 68, [1992] O.J. No. 7, 11 C.R. (4th) 214, 15 W.C.B. (2d) 260, 39 M.V.R. (2d) 124, 54 O.A.C. 281, 6 O.R. (3d) 667, 70 C.C.C. (3d) 280

[6] R. v. Evans, 1991 CarswellBC 417, 1991 CarswellBC 918, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 869, [1991] B.C.W.L.D. 1220, [1991] S.C.J. No. 31, 124 N.R. 278, 12 W.C.B. (2d) 579, 3 C.R.R. (2d) 315, 4 C.R. (4th) 144, 63 C.C.C. (3d) 289, J.E. 91-689, EYB 1991-67049 at para 39

[7] R. v. Vanstaceghem, 1987 CarswellOnt 100, [1987] O.J. No. 509, 21 O.A.C. 210, 2 W.C.B. (2d) 308, 36 C.C.C. (3d) 142, 48 M.V.R. 311, 58 C.R. (3d) 121; R v Nguyen, 2020 ONSC 7783 at para 26-27, 52; see also R v Polusmiak, 2022 PECA 8 and R v Bassi, 2015 ONCJ 340

[8] R v Manninen, 1987 CarswellOnt 99, 1987 CarswellOnt 967, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1233, [1987] S.C.J. No. 41, 21 O.A.C. 192, 2 W.C.B. (2d) 307, 34 C.C.C. (3d) 385, 38 C.R.R. 37, 41 D.L.R. (4th) 301, 58 C.R. (3d) 97, 61 O.R. (2d) 736 (note), 76 N.R. 198, J.E. 87-811, EYB 1987-67474 at para 21 [Manninen]; R v Cairns, 2004 CarswellOnt 316, [2004] O.J. No. 201, [2004] O.J. No. 210, 115 C.R.R. (2d) 373, 182 O.A.C. 181, 47 M.V.R. (4th) 43, 60 W.C.B. (2d) 228

[9] Manninen, supra note 8, at para 23

[10] R v Boca, 2012 ONCA 367 at para 13; R v Goodfellow, 2014 ONCJ 567 at para 122, aff’d (2016) ONSC 5445.

[11] Sinclair, supra note 1 at para 50-65

[12] Ibid

[13] R v Black, 1989 CarswellNS 21, 1989 CarswellNS 389, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 138, [1989] A.C.S. No. 81, [1989] S.C.J. No. 81, 242 A.P.R. 35, 47 C.R.R. 171, 50 C.C.C. (3d) 1, 70 C.R. (3d) 97, 8 W.C.B. (2d) 196, 93 N.S.R. (2d) 35, 98 N.R. 281, J.E. 89-1189, EYB 1989-67395 at para 34-35 [Black]; R v Tremblay, 1987 CarswellOnt 111, 1987 CarswellOnt 972, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 435, [1987] S.C.J. No. 59, 25 O.A.C. 93, 2 M.V.R. (2d) 289, 32 C.R.R. 381, 37 C.C.C. (3d) 565, 3 W.C.B. (2d) 110, 45 D.L.R. (4th) 445, 60 C.R. (3d) 59, 79 N.R. 153, J.E. 87-1094, EYB 1987-67488 at para 9

[14] Black, supra note 13 at 34-35; R v Leclair, 1989 CarswellOnt 67, 1989 CarswellOnt 953, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 3, [1989] S.C.J. No. 2, 31 O.A.C. 321, 37 C.R.R. 369, 46 C.C.C. (3d) 129, 67 C.R. (3d) 209, 7 W.C.B. (2d) 43, 91 N.R. 81, J.E. 89-269, EYB 1989-67442 at para 15-16 [Leclair]

[15] Leclair, supra note 14 at para 16

[16] Ibid at para 20; Black, supra note 13 at para 36


This article has been prepared for our website for general information purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. Please Contact Us if you wish to review the particular circumstances of your case
Posted under Criminal Offences
Go back to the Article Archive

Call (705) 302‑0468 or Fill Out Our Quickform Below. Prompt Reply Guaranteed.