Ontario Criminal


Accused incapable of planning and deliberation required to tell convincing lie

Trial of accused for attempting to obstruct justice. Individual attended at police station on April 5, 2011 and he informed officer that he was responsible for large marijuana grow-op that police discovered in October 2010. Owner of property was arrested at site and he was charged. Owner was released from custody pursuant to recognizance. Accused was owner’s younger brother and he was named as surety on recognizance for $50,000. Owner lived with accused after his release. Several hours after individual confessed to crime he admitted that he was not involved in grow-op and he was promised $25,000 by owner if he confessed to being person who used property for growing marijuana. He only visited property once, on March 27, 2011, to familiarize himself with property before he confessed to police. Individual claimed that he was accompanied and driven to property by accused. Owner could not accompany him because his recognizance did not permit him to visit property. Accused denied knowing that marijuana was grown on property and he denied meeting individual prior to court proceedings in this matter. Accused convicted. Individual’s evidence had internal consistency that underscored its reliability. It was supported by facts and other evidence and it was credible and truthful. Court would not make adverse finding of credibility against individual solely because he had criminal record. Individual was simple man who lacked ability to set up and operate sophisticated grow-op and it would not have taken two officers who interviewed him too long to come to that realization. He was incapable of planning and deliberation that was required to tell convincing lie.

R. v. Yeung

(Sep. 4, 2014, Ont. S.C.J., E.J. Koke J., File No. CR-12-26-0000) 115 W.C.B. (2d) 435.

cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

Law Times reports that there is no explicit rule that lawyers in Ontario must be competent in the use of technology. Do you think there should be explicit rules spelling out the expectations of lawyers’ in terms of tech use in their practice?