IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA APPEAL DIVISION. Clarke, C.J.N.S., Jones and Matthews, JJ.A. RAYMOND MARC LePAGE, -and-
|
|
- Dwain Brooks
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 S.C.C. No IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA APPEAL DIVISION BETWEEN: Clarke, C.J.N.S., Jones and Matthews, JJ.A. RAYMOND MARC LePAGE, -and- Appellant HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, Respondent E.A.N. Blackburn for the Appellant Kenneth W. F. Fiske for the Respondent Appeal heard: October 2, 1986 Judgment delivered: November 12, 1986 THE COURT: Leave to appeal granted, appeal allowed, conviction and sentence set aside and acquittal entered per reasons for judgment by Jones, J.A.; Clarke, C.J.N.S. and Matthews, J.A. concurring. CANADA PROVINCE OF NOVA SCOTIA 1986, CBW 6175 BETWEEN: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA APPEAL DIVISION on appeal from the COUNTY COURT JUDGE'S CRIMINAL APPEAL COURT OF DISTRICT NUMBER TWO RAYMOND MARC LEPAGE
2 - and - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Heard Before: The Honourable Judge L.L. Clements Place Heard: Bridgewater, Nova Scotia Date Heard: June 17th, 1986 Counsel: E.A.N. Blackburn, Esq. for the Appellant A.W. Brown, Esq. for the Prosecution JONES, J.A.: This is an application by Raymond Marc LePage for leave to appeal from his conviction for operating a motor vehicle with more than 80 milligrams of alcohol in his blood contrary to s.237(b) of the Criminal Code. On February 9, 1986, Constable Lane Parent stopped a van operated by Mr. LePage at Hubbards as it was not displaying the current registration stickers. While checking the registration and Mr. LePage's license the Officer noticed an odour of alcohol emanating from the Appellant. At 4:43 p.m. the Officer read to Mr. LePage the demand for an A.L.E.R.T. test. Mr. LePage took the test and failed. The Officer then made a demand for a breathalyzer test and advised Mr. LePage of his right to retain and instruct counsel without delay. The Appellant told the Officer he wished to consult a lawyer. The Officer instructed Mr. LePage that he could choose the location from which he could telephone a lawyer. As Mr. LePage's house was a short distance away he told the Officer that he wished to call from his house. Constable Parent agreed, at the same time advising the Appellant that for purposes of continuity he would have to keep the Appellant under observation at all times. The Officer drove the Appellant to the LePage home, arriving there at 4:51 p.m. The Appellant made three telephone calls before contacting a lawyer. After speaking to the lawyer Mr. LePage agreed to take the test. While Mr. LePage was using the telephone the Officer stood by the door some five or six feet away. The Officer testified on the trial as follows: "Well I didn't hear what actually word for word what he was saying. I know he was having a conversation with another
3 person at the end on the telephone at the other end and he was discussing the matter at hand. That's all I can tell you." Mr. LePage testified on the trial. He stated: "A. Before we came to the house, he said you can make the call from your house but you cannot leave my view. So if there was any thought of my asking for any kind of privacy, I just didn't feel I had any rights. I thought I was to, you know, make the call and he had mentioned two or three times, you know, hurry up, you know. It can't take you that long and I said look, I'm just trying to figure out where this guy lives and I, you know, I had called an office number. Then I called your home number and I was able to get you. Q. Now is his evidence correct ah that he was approximately 5 feet from you when you were... A. Yes." He also stated: "Q. All right. Did you ask him to - to move out of the room or anything while you were making those calls? A. Ah in view of the fact that he said that I had - he had to be in my view at all times, I didn't think I had that right." The Officer took Mr. LePage to Chester where two samples of breath were taken. The first reading was 160 milligrams, and the second 150 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood. The Appellant was tried before His Honour Judge Kennedy in the Provincial Court at Bridgewater. The Appellant contended that the certificate of analysis should have been excluded as the Appellant had not been allowed to consult counsel in private in violation of s.10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Judge Kennedy convicted the Appellant. With respect to the Charter argument he stated: "To the extent that the officer, in this instance by stating that he would have to remain in the presence of the accused, may have convinced the accused that he was not entitled to privacy and cause him not to request it. The officer may have inadvertently violated the accused right to counsel or at least
4 the privacy aspect of that right. I do find though that it was unintentional that the officer was being influenced by the unusual situation that the call was being made from the home of the accused and that was being done at the request of the accused. More importantly the need for privacy seems to be expressed here ex post facto. The accused did not request privacy at the time, although his explanation for that seems valid enough, and I've taken his explanation into consideration. He did speak though to a lawyer and as a result of his conversation with counsel, after having spoken to counsel at any rate and I can certainly presume that it was as a result of his conversation with counsel, he agreed to take the test. So the lack of privacy, although it well might have been meaningful, it well might have made reasonable communication with his counsel and possible, does not seem to have caused any difficulty in this specific. It's not every violation of one's rights that will result in a remedial exclusion of evidence. If there was a violation here, I find that it was unintentional and more importantly, I find that it was unconsequential. I do not find that it should, in this specific, and I am stressing that I am dealing with a specific situation, I do not find that it should in this specific case cause the exclusion of otherwise lawful and relevant evidence." Mr. LePage appealed the conviction to the County Court. Clements, J.C.C. dismissed the appeal. Judge Clements, in his decision, stated: "The view I take of this matter is simply this, that the accused fully understood when he asked to use the phone in his own home and the police officer said yes you may but I must be present when you're making the call. I think, in my view, this was a waiver on the part of the accused of his right to privacy. It seems to me it's clearly an implied waiver. He went ahead and used the telephone, knowing that the police officer was going to be present and now. he comes along at this stage and raises the argument of no privacy. There's no question that his right to privacy was breached, but I would go to the second stage in this matter and say that under s.24(2) it certainly doesn't create a situation, in my view, that calls for the exclusion of the evidence. Certainly I don't think it is the sort of behaviour on the part of the police that would shock or upset the community. There's certainly no question under s.24(2) that this brings the administration of justice into disrepute. I just don't accept the argument. It doesn't seem to me that the
5 administration of justice would be brought into disrepute by the behaviour of the police in this particular case." The Appellant has applied for leave to appeal his conviction. The notice contains the following grounds: "1. THAT the learned County Court Judge erred in law in holding that there was sufficient evidence upon which a finding could be made that the accused did unlawfully have the care and control of a motor vehicle having consumed alcohol in such a quantity that the concentration thereof in his blood exceeded eighty milligrams of alcohol in one hundred millilitres of blood, contrary to Section 237(b) of the Criminal Code of Canada. 2. THAT the learned County Court Judge erred in law in holding that the Appellant's right to retain and instruct counsel pursuant to Section 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was not infringed or denied." The first ground, which raises a question as to the sufficiency of the evidence, is one of fact and therefore cannot be sustained under s.771 of the Code. The second ground raises the main issue on this appeal. Section 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides: "10. Everyone has the right on arrest or detention... (b) to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right;... In R. v. Big M. Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295, Chief Justice Dickson, in delivering the judgment of the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada, stated at p.344: "This Court has already, in some measure, set out the basic approach to be taken in interpreting the Charter. In Hunter v. Southam Inc., [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145, this Court expressed the view that the proper approach to the definition of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Charter was a purposive one. The meaning of a right or freedom guaranteed by the Charter was to be ascertained by an analysis of the purpose of such a guarantee; it was to be understood, in other words, in the light of the interests it was meant to protect.
6 In my view this analysis is to be undertaken, and the purpose of the right or freedom in question is to be sought by reference to the character and the larger objects of the Charter itself, to the language chosen to articulate the specific right or freedom, to the historical origins of the concepts enshrined, and where applicable, to the meaning and purpose of the other specific rights and freedoms with which it is associated within the text of the Charter. The interpretation should be, as the judgment in Southam emphasizes, a generous rather than a legalistic one, aimed at fulfilling the purpose of the guarantee and securing for individuals the full benefit of the Charter's protection. At the same time it is important not to overshoot the actual purpose of the right or freedom in question, but to recall that the Charter was not enacted in a vacuum, and must therefore, as this Court's decision in Law Society of Upper Canada v. Shapinker, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 357, illustrates, be placed in its proper linguistic, philosophic and historical contexts." at p.337: In R. v. Oakes, 24 C.C.C. (3d) 321, the Chief Justice also stated "Although there are important lessons to be learned from the Canadian Bill of Rights jurisprudence, it does not constitute binding authority in relation to the constitutional interpretation of the Charter. As this Court held in R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., supra, the Charter, as a constitutional document, is fundamentally different from the statutory Canadian Bill of Rights, which was interpreted as simply recognizing and declaring existing rights." In Jumaga v. The Queen, [1977] 1 S.C.R. 486, in a split decision, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the accused had not been deprived of his right to retain and instruct counsel under the Canadian Bill of Rights where he was not permitted to speak to counsel on the telephone in private. Section 2(c)(ii) of the Bill of Rights provided that, "2....no law of Canada shall be construed or applied so as to... (c) deprive a person who has been arrested or detained... (ii) of the right to retain and instruct counsel without delay;...
7 While that section was framed as an interpretative provision, it is now clear that a person arrested or detained has an absolute right to retain and instruct counsel without delay subject to the provisions of s.1 of the Charter. The purpose is to protect the rights of an accused. In order to fulfill that purpose under the Charter,with respect, the reasoning of the minority in Jumaga should be applied to s.10(b). Chief Justice Laskin, in delivering the judgment of the minority, reviewed the authorities including the judgment of this Court in R. v. Doherty (1974), 25 C.R.N.S. 289, and concluded: "Certainly, as was said in Balkan, in Bond and in Doherty, all circumstances must be considered in determining how far privacy can go; but the fact that it may have to be limited in some cases does not call for an unqualified denial of any privacy in all cases. I do not think that it can reasonably be made a condition that an accused be shown to have asked for it before consideration is given to providing it. Once an accused has requested that he be permitted to consult counsel, that should carry with it, to the knowledge of the police, a right to have the consultation in private, so far as circumstances permit. The right to counsel is diluted if it can only be secured by adding request to request. I would not put the police in an adversary position on this question; they are better placed than the ordinary person (who has been detained or arrested and is in police custody) to recognize what the right to counsel imports, and they should be alert to protect that right as an important element in the administration of justice through law, for which they are as much accountable as any others involved in the judicial process." Even to obtain the minimal advice by means of a telephone a person detained or arrested must be free to discuss the circumstances of his detention with counsel. If he cannot do so for fear of making admissions in the presence of the police then, obviously, his right to instruct counsel has been limited. In such circumstances the right under the Charter has been violated. In my view, the right to privacy is inherent in the right to retain and instruct counsel under s.10(b) of the Charter. I do not think it can be said in this case that the Appellant waived his right as the Officer had unilaterally imposed conditions on the exercise of the right before allowing the Appellant to use the telephone. It was clear to the Appellant that he could only exercise his right in the presence of the Officer. In R. v. Dombrowski (1985), 44 C.R. (3d) 1, Tallis, J.A. in delivering the judgment of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal stated at p.9: "The basic right to counsel under s.10(b) of the Charter is now part of the supreme law of Canada and must be respected by the courts if it is to have any meaning for the average citizen. This right must also be respected and taken seriously by law enforcement officers. In this case, the arresting officers had no right to limit the appellant's opportunity to contact counsel until they returned to the detachment
8 office. With the availability of a telephone at the business premises of Co-op Implements, there was no justification for limiting or delaying the opportunity. We appreciate that regard must be had to the circumstances of each case but in this case we hold that the incriminating evidence should be excluded under s.24(2) of the Charter. To hold otherwise would whittle away the rights accorded to every citizen under s.10(b). The admission of the oral statements would in the circumstances of this case bring the administration of justice into disrepute. We have no doubt that law enforcement officers will recognize the necessity and desirability of complying with the Charter requirements. The exclusionary rule in s.24(2) clearly serves as a disincentive to limit or abuse a person's rights under s.10(b) of the Charter: see, for example, R. v. Lajoie, [1984] N.W.T.R. 30, 8 C.C.C. (3d) 353, 4 D.L.R. (4th) 491, 50 A.R. 140 (S.C.). Furthermore, even if it could not be said that the test for mandatory exclusion set out in s.24(2) of the Charter had not been met, we are of the opinion that the court should have exercised its discretion under s.24(1) to exclude the evidence on the footing that this would be an appropriate and just remedy in the circumstances of the case." (See also Porter v. R., 46 C.R. (3d) 232.) In Regina v. Therens, 18 C.C.C. (3d) 481, the Supreme Court of Canada had to decide whether evidence of a breath sample would be admissible where the accused had not been advised of his right to counsel. Estey, J., with three members of the Court concurring, stated at p.488: "Here the police authority has flagrantly violated a Charter right without any statutory authority for so doing. Such an overt violation as occurred here must, in my view, result in the rejection of the evidence thereby obtained. We are here dealing only with direct evidence or evidence thereby obtained directly and I leave to another day any consideration of evidence thereby indirectly obtained. To do otherwise than reject this evidence on the facts and circumstances in this appeal would be to invite police officers to disregard Charter rights of the citizen and to do so with an assurance of impunity. If s.10(b) of the Charter of Rights can be offended without any statutory authority for the police conduct here in question and without the loss of admissibility of evidence obtained by such a breach then s.10(b) would be stripped of any meaning and would have no place in the catalogue of 'legal rights' found in the Charter. The violation by the police authority of a fundamental Charter right, which transpired here, will render this evidence inadmissible. Admitting this evidence under these circumstances would clearly
9 'bring the administration of justice into disrepute'. I am strongly of the view that it would be most improvident for this Court to expatiate, in these early days of life with the Charter of Rights, upon the meaning of the expression 'administration of justice' and particularly its outer limits. There will no doubt be, over the years to come, a gradual build-up in delineation and definition of the words used in the Charter in s.24(2)." Lamer, J. stated at p.490: "In my view, s.10(b) requires at least that the authorities inform the detainee of his rights, not prevent him in any way from exercising them and, where a detainee is required to provide evidence which may be incriminating and refusal to comply is punishable as a criminal offence, as is the case under s.235 of the Code, s.10(b) also imposes a duty not to call upon the detainee to provide that evidence without first informing him of his s.10(b) rights and providing him with a reasonable opportunity and time to retain and instruct counsel. Failure to abide by that duty will lead to the obtainment of evidence in a manner which infringes or denies the detainee's s.10(b) rights. Short of that, s.10(b) would be a near empty right, as remedies could seldom affect the admissibility of evidence obtained through the accused." Dickson, C.J. agreed with that reasoning. In Trask v. The Queen, 18 C.C.C. (3d) 514, and Rahn v. The Queen, 18 C.C.C. (3d) 516, the Supreme Court of Canada, in following Therens, excluded the evidence of the breathalyzer tests in both cases. In Regina v. Phillips, 26 C.C.C. (3d) 60, Prowse, J.A., in delivering the judgment of the Alberta Court of Appeal, stated at p.63: "The word flagrant is used by Estey J. in the test he applied in the Therens case. The factors that gave rise to the use of that adjective are not particularized. At first reading the Therens case would appear to support the conclusion that virtually all evidence obtained after an accused's rights have been infringed should be excluded. I think that such an interpretation should not be accepted for to do so would sterilize the intent set out in s.24(2). Clearly, that section contemplated the admission of such evidence in certain circumstances. The intent of s.24(2) is to assure that the historical function of a court, to search for the truth, is not subordinated to the interest of an accused unless its admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. The public interest requires that the court continue to
10 carry on its historical function. When the Therens case is considered with that in mind, I am of the view that the principle established by it is that where the sole evidence of a material fact (in Therens the breathalyzer reading, here the refusal) arises after and as a result of the violation of the accused's s.10(b) right, then the admission of such evidence will bring the administration of justice into disrepute. I believe such a conclusion would be supported by reasonable minded persons. I leave aside the effect of the nature of the offence, that is, whether the principle applies without consideration being given:to the nature of the offence." I see no reason why the principles in Therens should not apply in this case. I think on the evidence it is purely speculative to suggest that the Appellant was not affected by the denial of his rights in this case. I would accordingly grant leave to appeal, allow the appeal and exclude the evidence of the breathalyzer test under s.24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In the result the conviction should be quashed and an acquittal entered. J.A. Concurred in: Clarke. C.J.N.S. Matthews, J.A. PROVINCE OF NOVA SCOTIA COUNTY OF LUNENBURG PC IN THE COUNTY COURT JUDGES CRIMINAL COURT FOR DISTRICT NO. 2 ON APPEAL PROM THE PROVINCIAL COURT BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN on the Information of Lane Parent of Chester in the County of Lunenburg versus
11 RAYMOND MARC LEPAGE TRIAL BEFORE: His Honour Judge Joseph P. Kennedy, J.P.C. PLACE HEARD: Bridgewater, N.S. DATES HEARD: April 14, 1986 & April 23, 1986 CHARGE: "at or near Simms Settlement in the County of Lunenburg, Nova Scotia, on or about the 9th day of February, 1986, did unlawfully have the care or control of a motor vehicle having consumed alcohol in such a quantity that the concentration thereof in his blood exceeded eighty milligrams of alcohol in one hundred millilitres of blood, contrary to Section 237(b) of the Criminal Code of Canada." COUNSEL: Mr. Anthony Brown, for the Prosecution Mr. Nelson Blackburn, for the Defence CASE ON APPEAL S.C.C. No IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA APPEAL DIVISION BETWEEN: RAYMOND MARC LePAGE -and- HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: JONES, J.A.
The Queen v. Therens, 1985
The Queen v. Therens, 1985 Therens is the first Supreme Court decision dealing with section 24, the remedy section of the Charter. Experience with the Canadian, Bill of Rights demonstrated the truth of
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE SUMMARY CONVICTION APPEAL COURT
COURT FILE NO.: SCA(P2731/08 (Brampton DATE: 20090724 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE SUMMARY CONVICTION APPEAL COURT B E T W E E N: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Cynthia Valarezo, for the Crown Respondent -
More informationHogan v. The Queen, 1975
Hogan v. The Queen, 1975 Rendering conflicting legislation inoperative is not the only way in which the courts can give effect to a Bill of Rights. A bill may also serve as a set of interpretative guidelines
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Bruhm, 2018 NSSC 295. v. Austin James Douglas Bruhm. Voir Dire Decision
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Bruhm, 2018 NSSC 295 Date: 20181121 Docket: CRBW473972 Registry: Bridgewater Between: Her Majesty the Queen v. Austin James Douglas Bruhm Restriction on Publication
More informationCitation: R. v. R.C. (P.) Date: PESCTD 22 Docket: GSC Registry: Charlottetown
Citation: R. v. R.C. (P.) Date: 2000308 2000 PESCTD 22 Docket: GSC-17475 Registry: Charlottetown BETWEEN: AND: PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
More informationBetween Her Majesty the Queen, and Brandon Oliver. [2011] O.J. No Ontario Court of Justice Brampton, Ontario. W.J. Blacklock J.
Page 1 Case Name: R. v. Oliver Between Her Majesty the Queen, and Brandon Oliver [2011] O.J. No. 4554 Ontario Court of Justice Brampton, Ontario W.J. Blacklock J. Oral judgment: June 20, 2011. (32 paras.)
More informationCase Name: R. v. XXXXX-XXXXX. Between Her Majesty the Queen, and Diego G. XXXXX-XXXXX. [2010] O.J. No File No
Page 1 Case Name: R. v. XXXXX-XXXXX Between Her Majesty the Queen, and Diego G. XXXXX-XXXXX [2010] O.J. No. 5433 File No. 09-0082 Counsel: Mr. R. Tallim, Counsel for the Crown. Mr. D. Anber, Counsel for
More informationPROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN LESLIE CAMERON KING
PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION Citation: R. v. King 2008 PESCTD 18 Date: 20080325 Docket: S1-GC-572 Registry: Charlottetown BETWEEN: AND: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN LESLIE
More informationProsper Warning: Part 2. R. v. Weeseekase(2007) 1. By Gino Arcaro B.Sc., M.Ed. I. Executive Summary
Prosper Warning: Part 2 R. v. Weeseekase(2007) 1 By Gino Arcaro B.Sc., M.Ed. I. Executive Summary This is the second of a two-part series on the application of the Prosper Warning in cases where an arrested
More informationONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
Sault Ste. Marie COURT FILE No.: 05-3302 Citation: R. v. Maki, 2007 ONCJ 115 ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Michael Kelly, for the Crown AND ROBERT DANIEL MAKI, Joseph Bisceglia,
More informationPOLICE WARNINGS Effective Date: May 9, 2005 Revised: September 8, 2009
SOUTH COAST BRITISH COLUMBIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY POLICE SERVICE POLICE WARNINGS Effective Date: May 9, 2005 Revised: September 8, 2009 POLICY 1. All persons must be advised of their Charter rights
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: R. v. Orbanski; R. v. Elias, 2005 SCC 37 DATE: 20050616 DOCKET: 29793, 29920 BETWEEN: AND BETWEEN: Christopher Orbanski Appellant v. Her Majesty the Queen Respondent -
More informationONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN: COURT FILE No.: District Municipality of Muskoka #07-354 Citation: R. v. Andrews, 2008 ONCJ 599 ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN AND DANNY ANDREWS Before Justice Wm. G. Beatty Heard
More informationOntario Justice Education Network
1 Ontario Justice Education Network Section 10 of the Charter Section 10 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states: Everyone has the right on arrest or detention (a) (b) to be informed promptly
More informationCitation: R. v. Smith, 2003 YKTC 52 Date: Docket: T.C Registry: Whitehorse Trial Heard: Carcross
Citation: R. v. Smith, 2003 YKTC 52 Date: 20030725 Docket: T.C. 02-00513 Registry: Whitehorse Trial Heard: Carcross IN THE TERRITORIAL COURT OF YUKON Before: His Honour Chief Judge Lilles Regina v. Tommy
More informationPROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Brown, 2016 NSPC 63. Her Majesty. v. Michael Anthony Brown. The Honourable Judge Paul Scovil
PROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Brown, 2016 NSPC 63 Date: 2016-11-04 Docket: 2802941, 2802942 Registry: Halifax Between: Her Majesty v. Michael Anthony Brown Judge: Heard: The Honourable
More informationCase Name: R. v. McLean. Between Her Majesty the Queen, Crown, and Robert Andrew McLean, Accused. [2014] A.J. No ABPC 231
Page 1 Case Name: R. v. McLean Between Her Majesty the Queen, Crown, and Robert Andrew McLean, Accused [2014] A.J. No. 1137 2014 ABPC 231 Docket: 131243958P1 Registry: St. Paul Alberta Provincial Court
More informationDEFENDING DRINKING AND DRIVING CASES
Index A.L.E.R.T., see APPROVED SCREENING DEVICE ALCOHOL INFLUENCE REPORT, see APPENDIX G APPROVED INSTRUMENT, see APPENDIX C APPROVED SCREENING DEVICE Charter violations 4.8 Conduct of test calibration
More informationIN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF SASKATCHEWAN
IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2013 SKPC 143 Date: August 29, 2013 Information: 37252811 Location: Moose Jaw Between: Her Majesty the Queen - and - Kayci Rose Rachner Appearing: Brian
More informationIn the Provincial Court of Alberta
In the Provincial Court of Alberta Citation: R. v. Clements, 2007 ABPC 220 Between: Her Majesty the Queen - and - Date: 20070911 Docket: 050217389P101, 103 Registry: Okotoks Allan Herbert Clements Voir
More informationBetween Regina, and Uyen Bao Luu and Sarilynn Meiyung Chan. [2002] B.C.J. No BCPC 67. Burnaby Registry No
Page 1 Case Name: R. v. Luu Between Regina, and Uyen Bao Luu and Sarilynn Meiyung Chan [2002] B.C.J. No. 472 2002 BCPC 67 Burnaby Registry No. 76619 British Columbia Provincial Court Burnaby, British Columbia
More informationYoung offender confessions: right versus required. R. v. S.S. (2007) Ont. C.A. 1. By Gino Arcaro B.Sc., M.Ed
Young offender confessions: right versus required R. v. S.S. (2007) Ont. C.A. 1 By Gino Arcaro B.Sc., M.Ed I. Sec. 146(2)(b)(iv) and sec. 146(6) YCJA Among the numerous controversies surrounding young
More informationHer Majesty the Queen (applicant/appellant) v. Richard Gill (respondent/respondent) (C53886; 2012 ONCA 607) Indexed As: R. v. Gill (R.
Her Majesty the Queen (applicant/appellant) v. Richard Gill (respondent/respondent) (C53886; 2012 ONCA 607) Indexed As: R. v. Gill (R.) Ontario Court of Appeal Doherty, Lang and Epstein, JJ.A. September
More informationSECTION 8 UNREASONABLE SEARCH & SEIZURE
SECTION 8 UNREASONABLE SEARCH & SEIZURE : Did X violate Y s section 8 rights when they searched? : Section 8 states that everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure. The
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
BETWEEN CITATION: Abou-Elmaati v. Canada (Attorney General), 2011 ONCA 95 DATE: 20110207 DOCKET: C52120 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO Sharpe, Watt and Karakatsanis JJ.A. Ahmad Abou-Elmaati, Badr Abou-Elmaati,
More informationCitation: R. v. Finck, 2017 NSPC 73. Matthew Finck. Restriction on Publication: Pursuant to s of the Criminal Code DECISION ON SENTENCE
PROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Finck, 2017 NSPC 73 Date: 20171129 Docket: 8074143/8074144 Registry: Amherst Between: Her Majesty the Queen v. Matthew Finck Restriction on Publication:
More informationAlberta (Attorney General) v. Krushell, 2003 ABQB 252 Date: Action No
Alberta (Attorney General) v. Krushell, 2003 ABQB 252 Date: 20030318 Action No. 0203 19075 IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF ALBERTA JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF EDMONTON IN THE MATTER OF the Freedom of Information
More informationNOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: R. v. George, 2016 NSCA 88. Steven William George
NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: R. v. George, 2016 NSCA 88 Date: 20161209 Docket: CAC 449452 Registry: Halifax Between: Her Majesty the Queen v. Steven William George Appellant Respondent Judge:
More informationNEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER
March 20, 2009 A-2009-004 NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER REPORT A-2009-004 Eastern Regional Integrated Health Authority Summary: The Applicant applied under
More informationSlide 1. Slide 2 Basic denial defence which is used when the accused claims that he or she was not present at the time of the offence.
Slide 1 (including Excuses and Justifications) Slide 2 Basic denial defence which is used when the accused claims that he or she was not present at the time of the offence. Independent evidence supporting
More informationPROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Fleet, 2015 NSPC 92. v. David Richard K. Fleet. Decision on Voir Dire
PROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Fleet, 2015 NSPC 92 Date: 20151021 Docket: 2793474, 2793475 & 2793476 Registry: Dartmouth Between: Her Majesty the Queen v. David Richard K. Fleet Decision
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: R. v. Awashish, 2018 SCC 45 APPEAL HEARD: February 7, 2018 JUDGMENT RENDERED: October 26, 2018 DOCKET: 37207 BETWEEN: Her Majesty The Queen Appellant and Justine Awashish
More information1. The defendant, James Gauvin, is charged with two counts of uttering threats to kill a dog contrary to s (1)(c), two counts of killing an anim
2009 NBPC 29 R. v. James Alderice Gauvin CANADA File no: 19435301 IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF NEW BRUNSWICK JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MONCTON BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN - and - JAMES ALDERICE GAUVIN BEFORE:
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 4 November Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 9 September 2013
NO. COA14-390 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 4 November 2014 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. Buncombe County No. 11 CRS 63608 MATTHEW SMITH SHEPLEY Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 9 September
More informationOfficial Journal of the European Union. (Legislative acts) DIRECTIVES
11.3.2016 L 65/1 I (Legislative acts) DIRECTIVES DIRECTIVE (EU) 2016/343 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence
More informationCanadian Criminal Law and Impaired Driving
Canadian Criminal Law and Impaired Driving H. Pruden Department of Justice (Canada) Ottawa, Ontario Abstract This article outlines the current criminal legislation directed against alcohol and drug driving
More informationJohn Humphrey Centre for Peace and Human Rights Youth Guide to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms French and English
Background Information PINK 3 John Humphrey Centre for Peace and Human Rights Youth Guide to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms French and English GRADES 1-6 John Humphrey Centre for Peace and
More informationIN BRIEF SECTION 24(2) OF THE CHARTER EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE. Learning Objectives. Materials. Extension. Teaching and Learning Strategies
OF THE CHARTER EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE Learning Objectives To develop students knowledge of section 24(2) of the Charter, including the legal test used to determine whether or not evidence obtained through
More informationPROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION. Against. Gerard Joseph MacDonald
PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION Citation: R v. MacDonald 2007 PESCTD 29 Date: 20070820 Docket: S1 GC-556 Registry: Charlottetown Between Her Majesty the Queen Against
More informationGUIDE TO PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE IMMIGRATION DIVISION
GUIDE TO PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE IMMIGRATION DIVISION Legal Services Table of Contents About the Guide to Proceedings Before the Immigration Division ii, iii Notes and references..iv Chapter 1... POWERS
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT JACKSON COUNTY APPEARANCES: C. Michael Moore, Jackson, Ohio, for appellant.
[Cite as State v. Fizer, 2002-Ohio-6807.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT JACKSON COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, : : Plaintiff-Appellee, : : v. : Case No. 02CA4 : MARSHA D. FIZER, : DECISION
More informationPROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Burrell, 2018 NSPC 9. Adam Leslie Burrell LIBRARY HEADING
PROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Burrell, 2018 NSPC 9 Date: 20180409 Docket: Dartmouth No. 8110547 Registry: Dartmouth Between: Her Majesty the Queen v. Adam Leslie Burrell LIBRARY HEADING
More informationSEARCH & SEIZURE IN CANADA. A comprehensive guide on gun owners rights and obligations. including case law reviews edition
SEARCH & SEIZURE IN CANADA A comprehensive guide on gun owners rights and obligations including case law reviews 2018 edition INVESTIGATIVE TECHNIQUES OF POLICE OFFICERS The police use their powers in
More informationPeter M. Jacobsen, for Thomson Newspaper (The Globe and Mail), the Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd. and Toronto Sun Publishing Corporation.
Ontario Supreme Court R. v. Bernardo Date: 1995-02-10 R. and Paul Kenneth Bernardo Ontario Court of Justice (General Division) LeSage A.C.J.O.C. Judgment February 10, 1995. Raymond J. Houlahan, Q.C., for
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA. CITATION: R. v. Punko, 2012 SCC 39 DATE: DOCKET: 34135, 34193
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: R. v. Punko, 2012 SCC 39 DATE: 20120720 DOCKET: 34135, 34193 BETWEEN: AND BETWEEN: John Virgil Punko Appellant and Her Majesty The Queen Respondent Randall Richard Potts
More informationONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
COURT FILE No.: Toronto Region, Provincial Offences Certificate of Offence # 73657325 Citation: R. v. Rowan, 2004 ONCJ 153 ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN AND GRANT W. ROWAN Defendant/Applicant
More informationCase Name: R. v. Aulakh. Between Regina, and Surinder Pal Singh Aulakh. [2010] B.C.J. No BCPC M.V.R. (6th) CarswellBC 3091
Page 1 Case Name: R. v. Aulakh Between Regina, and Surinder Pal Singh Aulakh [2010] B.C.J. No. 2237 2010 BCPC 277 5 M.V.R. (6th) 179 2010 CarswellBC 3091 File No. 82351-1 Registry: Port Coquitlam British
More information2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. Govt. Works
Page 1 2010 CarswellOnt 8109 R. v. Allen Her Majesty the Queen against Andre Allen Ontario Court of Justice M. Then J.P. Heard: October 19, 2010 Judgment: October 19, 2010 Docket: None given. Thomson Reuters
More informationPROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. MacLean, 2015 NSPC 70. v. Nathan Fred Grant MacLean SENTENCING DECISION
PROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. MacLean, 2015 NSPC 70 Date: 2015-10-15 Docket: 2825618 Registry: Pictou Between: Her Majesty the Queen v. Nathan Fred Grant MacLean SENTENCING DECISION Restriction
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Smith, 2017 NSSC 122. v. Tyrico Thomas Smith
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Smith, 2017 NSSC 122 Date: 20170509 Docket: Cr. No. 449182 Registry: Halifax Between: Her Majesty the Queen v. Tyrico Thomas Smith Judge: Heard: Sentencing
More informationVANCOUVER POLICE DEPARTMENT PLANNING, RESEARCH & AUDIT SECTION
VANCOUVER POLICE DEPARTMENT PLANNING, RESEARCH & AUDIT SECTION ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT REPORT DATE: October 3, 2011 BOARD MEETING: October 19, 2011 BOARD REPORT # 1167 Regular TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Vancouver
More informationHer Majesty the Queen (appellant) v. Ronald Jones (respondent) (C52480; 2011 ONCA 632) Indexed As: R. v. Jones (R.)
Her Majesty the Queen (appellant) v. Ronald Jones (respondent) (C52480; 2011 ONCA 632) Indexed As: R. v. Jones (R.) Ontario Court of Appeal MacPherson, Blair and Epstein, JJ.A. October 11, 2011. Summary:
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Pike, 2018 NSSC 38. Jeremy Pike. v. Her Majesty the Queen
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Pike, 2018 NSSC 38 Date: 20180214 Docket: CRPH. No. 470108 Registry: Port Hawkesbury Between: Jeremy Pike v. Her Majesty the Queen Applicant Respondent Judge:
More informationACCESS TO CRIMINAL JUSTICE Divergent Trends in the Legal Profession DISCLOSURE REVISITED
ACCESS TO CRIMINAL JUSTICE Divergent Trends in the Legal Profession November 29, 2002 DISCLOSURE REVISITED Faculty: Anne Malick, Q.C. Speaking Notes Access to Solicitor/Client Privilegd Information-McClure
More informationBail Amendment Bill 2012
Bail Amendment Bill 2012 4 May 2012 Attorney-General Bail Amendment Bill 2012 PCO15616 (v6.2) Our Ref: ATT395/171 1. I have reviewed this Bill for consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.
More informationNOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: R. v. MacDonald, 2016 NSCA 27. Between: James Malcolm Russell MacDonald. v. Her Majesty the Queen
NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: R. v. MacDonald, 2016 NSCA 27 Date: 20160420 Docket: CAC 435925 Registry: Halifax Between: James Malcolm Russell MacDonald v. Her Majesty the Queen Appellant Respondent
More informationRoster Lawyers Tariff of Fees
Roster Lawyers Tariff of Fees December 7, 2015 Schedule 2 Roster Lawyers Tariff of Fees Table of Contents 1. Criminal Certificates 20 2. Criminal Appeal Certificates 27 3. Civil Certificates 30 4. Administrative
More informationINFORMATION NOTICE. Detention Review Hearings pursuant to s. 525 of the Criminal Code
INFORMATION NOTICE Detention Review Hearings pursuant to s. 525 of the Criminal Code Section 525 of the Criminal Code provides for an automatic review of an accused s detention as a consequence of the
More informationPart 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982 Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:
Part 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982 Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law: Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms 1. The Canadian Charter of Rights
More informationVEHICLE SEIZURE AND REMOVAL REGULATION
Province of Alberta TRAFFIC SAFETY ACT VEHICLE SEIZURE AND REMOVAL REGULATION Alberta Regulation 251/2006 With amendments up to and including Alberta Regulation 29/2018 Office Consolidation Published by
More informationCase Comment: Ictensev v. The Minister of Employement and Immigration
Journal of Law and Social Policy Volume 5 Article 10 1989 Case Comment: Ictensev v. The Minister of Employement and Immigration Michael Bossin Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/jlsp
More information5. There shall be a sitting of Parliament and of each legislature at least once every twelve months. (82)
CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law: Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms Rights and freedoms in Canada
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE EQUALITY AND LAW REFORM AND JOHN RENNER-DILLON
THE SUPREME COURT 104/10 Murray C.J. Denham J. Finnegan J. BETWEEN THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE EQUALITY AND LAW REFORM APPLICANT/RESPONDENT AND JOHN RENNER-DILLON RESPONDENT/APPELLANT Judgment of Mr Justice
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA. LeBel J.
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: R. v. Graveline, 2006 SCC 16 [2006] S.C.J. No. 16 DATE: 20060427 DOCKET: 31020 BETWEEN: Rita Graveline Appellant and Her Majesty The Queen Respondent OFFICIAL ENGLISH
More informationCoram: McLachlin C.J. and Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell JJ.
Coram: McLachlin C.J. and Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell JJ. The following is the judgment delivered by The Court: I. Introduction [1] Omar Khadr, a Canadian citizen,
More informationREGINA v. WHITE 1 -K. B. POTTER* try the charges summarily, the accused was refused legal aid. The only
434 ALBERTA LAW REVIEW [VOL.XV Companies Act is amended as other provinces' companies acts have been to permit a company to purchase its shares if a solvency test is met. B.A., LL.B. (Alta.), LL.M. (London);
More informationBail: An Abridged Overview of Federal Criminal Law
Bail: An Abridged Overview of Federal Criminal Law Charles Doyle Senior Specialist in American Public Law July 31, 2017 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R40222 Summary This is an overview
More informationBetween Her Majesty the Queen, appellant, and Major Jay Fox, respondent. [2003] S.J. No SKCA 79 Docket: 585
Case Name: R. v. Fox Between Her Majesty the Queen, appellant, and Major Jay Fox, respondent [2003] S.J. No. 556 2003 SKCA 79 Docket: 585 Saskatchewan Court of Appeal Vancise, Sherstobitoff and Jackson
More information2013 Bill 32. First Session, 28th Legislature, 62 Elizabeth II THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA BILL 32 ENHANCING SAFETY ON ALBERTA ROADS ACT
2013 Bill 32 First Session, 28th Legislature, 62 Elizabeth II THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA BILL 32 ENHANCING SAFETY ON ALBERTA ROADS ACT THE MINISTER OF TRANSPORTATION First Reading.......................................................
More informationLEADING DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
LEADING DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA LAWSON A.W. HUNTER v. SOUTHAM, INC. September 17, 1984 EDITORS PETER H. RUSSELL UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO RAINER KNOPFF UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY F.L. MORTON UNIVERSITY
More informationMaxime Charron-Tousignant Dominique Valiquet. Publication No C73-E 1 September 2015
Bill C-73: An Act to amend the Criminal Code (offences in relation to conveyances) and the Criminal Records Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts Publication No. 41-2-C73-E 1 September
More informationPROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Reeve, 2018 NSPC 30. v. Sherri Reeve DECISION RE: JURISDICTION OF PROVINCIAL COURT
PROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Reeve, 2018 NSPC 30 Date: 20180831 Docket: 2793700 & 2793703 Registry: Dartmouth Between: Her Majesty the Queen v. Sherri Reeve DECISION RE: JURISDICTION
More informationNOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: MacNutt v. Acadia University, 2017 NSCA 57. Laura MacNutt/PIER 101 Home Designs Inc.
Between: NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: MacNutt v. Acadia University, 2017 NSCA 57 Laura MacNutt/PIER 101 Home Designs Inc. v. Date: 20170620 Docket: CA 455902 / CA 458781 Registry: Halifax Appellant
More informationSchedule B. Constitution Act, 1982 (79) Enacted as Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.) 1982, c. 11, which came into force on April 17, 1982
Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms Fundamental Freedoms Democratic Rights Mobility Rights Legal Rights Equality Rights Official Languages of Canada Minority Language Educational Rights Enforcement General
More information[3] The Crown seeks to present these two statements, as well as a comment made 2. by Mr. McLean to a police officer on December 13 th 2002, as evidenc
NO. 130A-0001 IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR BETWEEN: AND: Heard: July 11 th 2003 Judgment: July 16 th 2003 HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN RAYMOND PATRICK McLEAN DECISION OF GORMAN, P.C.J.
More informationCanadian charter of rights and freedoms
Canadian charter of rights and freedoms Schedule B Constitution Act, 1982 (79) Enacted as Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.) 1982, c. 11, which came into force on April 17, 1982 PART I Whereas Canada
More informationCRIMINAL LAW PROFESSIONAL STANDARD #2
CRIMINAL LAW PROFESSIONAL STANDARD #2 NAME OF STANDARD A GUILTY PLEA Brief Description of Standard: A standard on the steps to be taken by counsel before entering a guilty plea on behalf of a client. Committee
More informationCHAPTER 4 NEW ZEALAND BILL OF RIGHTS ACT 1990 AND HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1993 INTRODUCTION
110 CHAPTER 4 NEW ZEALAND BILL OF RIGHTS ACT 1990 AND HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1993 Background INTRODUCTION The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (Bill of Rights Act) affirms a range of civil and political rights.
More informationI. INTRODUCTION 1 II. S. 146 OF THE YCJA 1 III. PRINCIPLES EMERGING FROM R. V. L.T.H. 3 A. BURDEN OF PROOF 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. S. 146 OF THE YCJA 1 III. PRINCIPLES EMERGING FROM R. V. L.T.H. 3 A. BURDEN OF PROOF 4 B. 146(2)(b): A CLEAR EXPLANATION IN APPROPRIATE LANGUAGE 4 C. 146(4):
More informationISSUES. Saskatoon Criminal Defence Lawyers Association December 1, Fall Seminar, 1998: Bail Hearings and Sentencing. Prepared by: Andrew Mason
SENTENCING ISSUES Saskatoon Criminal Defence Lawyers Association December 1, 1998 Fall Seminar, 1998: Bail Hearings and Sentencing Prepared by: Andrew Mason Also available to members at the SCDLA Web site:
More informationNOTICE OF DECISION. AND TO: Chief Constable Police Department. AND TO: Inspector Police Department. AND TO: Sergeant Police Department AND TO:
IN THE MATTER OF THE POLICE ACT, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 367 AND IN THE MATTER OF A REVIEW OF ALLEGATIONS OF DECEIT AND DISCREDITABLE CONDUCT AGAINST CONSTABLE OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT NOTICE OF DECISION TO:
More informationCANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS [FEDERAL]
PDF Version [Printer friendly ideal for printing entire document] CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS [FEDERAL] Published by Important: Quickscribe offers a convenient and economical updating service
More informationSENTENCING SUBMISSIONS
) SENTENCING SUBMISSIONS ) I \ '. ) SENTENCING SUBMISSIONS "Sentencing is, in respect of most offenders, the only significant decision the criminal justice system is called upon to make" R. v. Gardiner
More informationCouncil of the European Union Brussels, 22 January 2016 (OR. en)
Council of the European Union Brussels, 22 January 2016 (OR. en) Interinstitutional File: 2013/0407 (COD) 5264/16 INFORMATION NOTE From: To: Subject: General Secretariat of the Council CODEC 33 DROIPEN
More informationPROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - APPEAL DIVISION HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN STACEY REID BLACKMORE
Date: 19991207 Docket: AD-0832 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - APPEAL DIVISION BETWEEN: AND: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN STACEY REID BLACKMORE APPELLANT RESPONDENT
More informationCOURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF MANITOBA
Date: 20180831 Docket: CR 14-15-00636 (Thompson Centre) Indexed as: R. v. Clemons Cited as: 2018 MBQB 144 COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF MANITOBA IN THE MATTER OF: AND IN THE MATTER OF: The Criminal Code of
More informationPatrimoine canadien. Canadian. Heritage. The. Canadian. Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Canadian Heritage Patrimoine canadien The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God
More informationIN BRIEF SECTION 1 OF THE CHARTER AND THE OAKES TEST
THE CHARTER AND THE OAKES TEST Learning Objectives To establish the importance of s. 1 in both ensuring and limiting our rights. To introduce students to the Oakes test and its important role in Canadian
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE AD 2017 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 6 OF 2015
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE AD 2017 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 6 OF 2015 EDWIN BOWEN Appellant v PC 440 GEORGE FERGUSON Respondent BEFORE The Hon Mr Justice Samuel Awich The Hon Mr Justice Christopher Blackman
More informationPROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. MacIntosh, 2018 NSPC 23. v. Emily Anne MacIntosh DECISION REGARDING ADJOURNMENT
PROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. MacIntosh, 2018 NSPC 23 Date: 2018-07-19 Docket: 8189240 Registry: Pictou Between: Her Majesty the Queen v. Emily Anne MacIntosh DECISION REGARDING ADJOURNMENT
More informationPart Seven. Remedies
Part Seven Remedies 23 23. R. v. Collins, 1987 centuries-old legal maxim holds that where there is a right, there is also a remedy. Rights A without remedies are mere words for the person whose right
More informationPROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. MacDonnell, 2015 NSPC 69. v. Victor Felix MacDonnell
PROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. MacDonnell, 2015 NSPC 69 Date: 2015-07-27 Docket: 2730116, 2730117 Registry: Halifax Between: Her Majesty the Queen v. Victor Felix MacDonnell Judge: Heard:
More informationThe Charter of Rights and Freedoms
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms Introduction - Sources of Rights and Freedoms In this section you'll learn about the importance of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and human rights legislation
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA. Robert Albert Gibson Appellant v. Her Majesty the Queen Respondent - and - Attorney General of Ontario Intervener
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: R. v. Gibson, 2008 SCC 16 DATE: 20080417 DOCKET: 31546, 31613 BETWEEN: AND BETWEEN: Robert Albert Gibson Appellant v. Her Majesty the Queen Respondent - and - Attorney
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
REL: 06/25/2010 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama A p
More informationPRACTICE DIRECTIVES FOR CONTESTED APPLICATIONS IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF MANITOBA
PRACTICE DIRECTIVES FOR CONTESTED APPLICATIONS IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF MANITOBA November 4, 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS PREAMBLE TO PRACTICE DIRECTIVES FOR CONTESTED APPLICATIONS IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT
More informationA Guide for Witnesses
Community Legal Information Association of Prince Edward Island, Inc. A Guide for Witnesses Introduction You may be called as a witness for either a criminal or civil trial. This pamphlet explains your
More informationHEARD: Before the Honourable Justice A. David MacAdam, at Halifax, Nova Scotia, on May 25 & June 15, 2000
Nova Scotia (Human Rights Commission) v. Sam's Place et al. Date: [20000803] Docket: [SH No. 163186] 1999 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA BETWEEN: THE NOVA SCOTIA HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION APPLICANT
More informationR. v. LORNA BOURGET 2007 NWTTC 13 File: T-01-CR IN THE TERRITORIAL COURT OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN.
R. v. LORNA BOURGET 2007 NWTTC 13 File: T-01-CR-2007000630 IN THE TERRITORIAL COURT OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES IN THE MATTER OF: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN - and - LORNA BOURGET Applicant REASONS FOR DECISION
More informationSection 810. This booklet explains the 810 process, what your rights are and how to get legal help.
INFORMATION FOR FEDERAL PRISONERS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA Section 810 The Criminal Code of Canada allows a judge or justice of the peace to require you to enter into a recognizance (like a peace bond) if there
More information