COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF MANITOBA

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF MANITOBA"

Transcription

1 Date: Docket: CR (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 Canada Section 7, section 11(b) and section 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms B E T W E E N: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN ) Counsel: ) - and - ) MICHAEL A. BODNER ) for the Crown ELMER BILL LAFOY CLEMONS, ) ) DAVID N. GRAY accused. ) for the accused ) ) JUDGMENT DELIVERED: ) AUGUST 31, 2018 Ruling re application under s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter ) SUCHE J. [1] Following a trial before me, I found Elmer Clemons guilty of sexual assault. He now brings an application for a judicial stay of proceedings alleging that his right to be tried within a reasonable time was violated.

2 Page: 2 BACKGROUND [2] Clemons was charged on August 22, 2013 as a result of an incident that occurred earlier that day. He was committed to stand trial on September 4, 2014 following a one-day preliminary inquiry. On November 22, 2014, his trial before a jury was scheduled for April 11 to 22, [3] In the fall of 2015, Clemons lawyer, Robert Mayer, fell ill. He announced his retirement from the practice of law on January 7, [4] Clemons had not been in contact with Mayer since the preliminary inquiry. He moved and did not advise Mayer of his new address. A lawyer at Mayer s firm, Margaret Carroll, attempted to reach Clemons on January 14, She called several phone numbers Clemons had provided and left messages. She also sent letters to him, one on January 22 and another on February 5, the latter by registered mail. She spoke to the Crown in January 2016 to explain the situation. [5] Clemons eventually contacted Carroll by phone on February 25, He told her he had lost his job some months prior. He was planning to apply to Legal Aid. [6] Carroll filed a notice of motion seeking permission for Mr. Mayer to withdraw as counsel of record. The matter came before the court on March 22, Clemons was present. He explained to the court that he had not been in touch with Mr. Mayer because he was laid off from his job and was not able to pay him. He wanted a Legal Aid lawyer to represent him. When asked what he

3 Page: 3 had done to find a lawyer, he said he had filled out an application for Legal Aid but had not heard back; his first action, he said, was to come to the motion. The court reminded him that the trial was only a matter of weeks away and asked if he was seeking an adjournment of the trial. He responded: Yeah that would be great because it ll give me time to talk with a lawyer. [Transcript of Proceedings, March 22, 2016, p. 3, lines 26-28] [7] Ms. Sweet, the Crown, spoke up and said that while it was obviously important for Clemons to have a lawyer, she was concerned about the delay and Clemons lack of contact with Mayer. She wanted the record to be clear that any adjournment was not the responsibility of the Crown but, rather, Clemons. [8] The court responded: So what Ms. Sweet is saying, Mr. Clemons, is she has no objection to Mr. Mayer no longer representing you and giving you a reasonable opportunity to get a new lawyer, even if that means adjourning the trial. The... concern she has is one of delay, and what she wants to make clear is that any delay from today s date forward to whenever a new date may be set is not attributable to the Crown. That is, the Crown is ready to go, any delay may not be your personal fault, per se. That s hard to know, I mean there s some evidence of lack of communication with Mr. Mayer, but certainly it isn t attributable to the Crown. And as long as it s agreed and accepted that that is the situation go forward anyway, then she would be prepared to agree to the trial being adjourned so that you can have a reasonable opportunity to secure a new lawyer. [Transcript of Proceedings, March 22, 2016, p. 4, lines 30-34, and p. 5, lines 1-10] And also: So there is going to be a lengthy delay. I think that we re looking at dates more than a year from now. Perhaps May of There were some dates available in May. There are some dates in April but the difficulty is it s very chopped up. There s a long weekend for Easter, four

4 Page: 4 days. There s also a four-day weekend because there s a judicial conference on the Thursday/Friday, so with several weeks very truncated; it might be harder to efficiently conduct a jury trial that s going to be seven or eight days that is going over a period of two weeks. [Transcript of Proceedings, March 22, 2016, p. 5, lines 22-32] [9] In fact, the first available two-week block was September 18 to 29, The trial was set for that time, and Mr. Clemons was told he should tell his new lawyer about the date. [10] A pre-trial conference took place on September 20, Mr. Clemons new lawyer appeared and advised he required time to review the transcripts of the preliminary inquiry and determine whether he would adopt the approach of the previous defence counsel. He had not yet considered re-election or resolution. He said nothing about delay. [11] Another pre-trial conference took place on January 20, The defence advised that Clemons was going to re-elect to judge alone. Counsel agreed that the trial only required one week. It seems there was no mention of delay. [12] The trial took place September 18 to 21, I gave my decision on September 25, 2017 and ordered a pre-sentence report, including a Gladue assessment, the preparation time for which was 12 weeks. On October 2, 2017, sentencing was scheduled for March 26, [13] On February 7, 2018, Mr. Clemons lawyer withdrew as counsel, and Mr. Clemons confirmed he had retained Mr. Gray to represent him.

5 Page: 5 [14] On March 13, 2018, Mr. Gray advised the court that he had assumed conduct of the defence and asked that the sentencing hearing be adjourned to allow him to bring this motion. THE LAW [15] In R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27, the Supreme Court of Canada set 30 months as a time limit for completion of trials in a superior court. Beyond that, the law presumes the accused s right to a fair trial has been violated and the Crown bears the onus of proving otherwise. [16] The 30-month ceiling is not absolute. Jordan requires that any delay caused by the defence is to be deducted. Further, if exceptional circumstances caused delay the time frame will be adjusted. Exceptional circumstances are events beyond the Crown s control because they were reasonably unforeseen or reasonably unavoidable, and the Crown could not have reasonably remedied them once they became known. [17] For cases in the system prior to the ruling, Jordan directed that the framework must be applied contextually and flexibly for reasons of fairness and practicality, and to ensure the integrity of the justice system. [18] After these adjustments are made, if the delay still exceeds the ceiling, transitional exceptional circumstances will apply if the Crown demonstrates that the time was justified on the basis of the parties reasonable reliance on the law as it previously existed; that is, the framework in R. v. Morin, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 771.

6 Page: 6 ANALYSIS AND DECISION [19] This case raises the following issues: 1. The proper characterization of the request for the adjournment was it a waiver of s. 11(b), defence-caused delay or exceptional circumstances? 2. What, if any, obligation did the Crown have to mitigate the delay, and did it meet that obligation? 3. What is the correct treatment of the six months delay from conviction to sentencing? 4. Was Mr. Clemons s. 11(b) right violated? [20] This motion was argued on May 29, In order to minimize the delay involved, I gave a ruling on July 3, 2018, being the first date counsel was available after June 11, 2018, which was the date initially offered. [21] I advised the parties I was dismissing the motion and a brief summary of why. I advised counsel that reasons for my decision would follow. They do now. 1. Was the delay waived? [22] In Jordan, the Supreme Court discussed waiver as one category of defence delay: [61] Defence delay has two components. The first is delay waived by the defence (Askov, at pp ; Morin, at pp ). Waiver can be explicit or implicit, but in either case, it must be clear and unequivocal. The accused must have full knowledge of his or her rights, as well as the

7 Page: 7 effect waiver will have on those rights. However, as in the past, "[i]n considering the issue of 'waiver' in the context of s. 11(b), it must be remembered that it is not the right itself which is being waived, but merely the inclusion of specific periods in the overall assessment of reasonableness" (R. v. Conway, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1659, per L'Heureux- Dubé J., at p. 1686). And as Sopinka J. stated in Morin, at p. 790: 38 Waiver requires advertence to the act of release rather than mere inadvertence. If the mind of the accused or his or her counsel is not turned to the issue of waiver and is not aware of what his or her conduct signifies, then this conduct does not constitute waiver. Such conduct may be taken into account under the factor "actions of the accused" but it is not waiver. As I stated in Smith, supra, which was adopted in Askov, supra, consent to a trial date can give rise to an inference of waiver. This will not be so if consent to a date amounts to mere acquiescence in the inevitable. [23] The defence says that Clemons was not in a position to give an informed waiver. He was self-represented and did not have the benefit of legal advice. He was not properly informed that he had a s. 11(b) right, and that he was giving it up. His agreement to the new trial date was mere acquiescence. [24] I disagree. Mr. Clemons requested the adjournment. The court told him in very clear language that an adjournment would delay the trial a year or more, and the delay would not be considered the Crown s fault, but his. His affidavit reveals that he understood his choices were to act for himself, proceed with Ms. Carroll, whom he felt had insufficient experience to take on his case, or adjourn the trial. His answer to the court s question of whether he was seeking an adjournment, Yeah... that would be great... exhibits a level of enthusiasm inconsistent with mere acquiescence.

8 Page: 8 [25] The circumstances as a whole also do not reveal any sense of urgency on Clemons part. He had not been in contact with Mr. Mayer for months; and at least by February 25, when he spoke with Ms. Carroll, he had decided to apply to Legal Aid, but all he had accomplished in the intervening month was to fill out an application. Of note, the issue of delay was not raised by his next lawyer or at all until a few weeks before sentencing. [26] It is true that nowhere in the exchange between Clemons and the court on March 22, 2016 was there specific reference to s. 11(b) and the right to a trial within a reasonable time. However, I conclude that the circumstances as a whole give rise to an inference that Mr. Clemons understood he had the right to have his trial heard in a timely way. In seeking an adjournment, he understood he was giving up that right for the period between April 2016, when the trial was then scheduled, and the new trial date of September 2017, which is 17 months. If not waived, was the delay due to exceptional circumstances or the conduct of the defence? [27] In addition to waiver, delay caused by the defence, whether intentionally or not, is also deducted in the time calculation. Jordan states: [63] The second component of defence delay is delay caused solely by the conduct of the defence. This kind of defence delay comprises "those situations where the accused's acts either directly caused the delay... or the acts of the accused are shown to be a deliberate and calculated tactic employed to delay the trial" (Askov, at pp ). [64] As another example, the defence will have directly caused the delay if the court and the Crown are ready to proceed, but the defence is not. The period of delay resulting from that unavailability will be attributed to the defence. However, periods of time during which the court and the Crown are unavailable will not constitute defence delay,

9 Page: 9 even if defence counsel is also unavailable. This should discourage unnecessary inquiries into defence counsel availability at each appearance. Beyond defence unavailability, it will of course be open to trial judges to find that other defence actions or conduct have caused delay (see, e.g., R. v. Elliott (2003), 114 C.R.R. (2d) 1 (Ont. C.A.), at paras ). [28] As for exceptional circumstances, Jordan describes them as: [69] Exceptional circumstances lie outside the Crown's control in the sense that (1) they are reasonably unforeseen o reasonably unavoidable, and (2) Crown counsel cannot reasonably remedy the delays emanating from those circumstances once they arise. So long as they meet this definition, they will be considered exceptional. They need not meet a further hurdle of being rare or entirely uncommon. [Emphasis supplied in Jordan] [29] Exceptional circumstances are generally either discrete events or particularly complex cases, and their existence is a question of fact to be determined by the trial judge. One example cited in Jordan is medical or family emergencies (whether on the part of the accused, important witnesses, counsel or the trial judge) (para. 72). [30] The defence says Mr. Mayer s illness was unforeseen and unavoidable and falls within the example of a medical emergency. I disagree. [31] Mr. Mayer became ill in the fall of He announced his retirement on January 7, The motion seeking leave for him to withdraw as Mr. Clemons lawyer was not brought before the court until March 22, [32] I accept that Mr. Mayer s illness was completely unexpected, but it was not an emergency. Sometime prior to January 7, 2016 (when he gave notice of retirement from practice) his inability to continue to act as Mr. Clemons lawyer

10 Page: 10 was known. The delay thereafter in getting before the court was significant. Some of this was caused by Clemons himself he had not told them he had moved and did not respond to Carroll for well over a month. [33] Given all of this, I conclude that this was not a situation of exceptional circumstances but defence-caused delay: specifically, the defence was not ready to proceed. 2. The Crown s duty to mitigate delay [34] The defence argues that where delay is defence-caused, the Crown is required to take all reasonable steps to reduce or avoid the impact of that delay. I disagree. [35] The obvious reason for the distinction between defence-caused delay and delay arising from exceptional circumstances is to differentiate between the roles these situations play in the new s. 11(b) analysis. The former is simply deducted. The latter will only be deducted if the Crown shows, [70]... that it took reasonable available steps to avoid and address the problem before the delay exceeded the ceiling. This might include prompt resort to case management processes to seek the assistance of the court, or seeking assistance from the defence to streamline evidence or issues for trial or to coordinate pre-trial applications, or resorting to any other appropriate procedural means. The Crown, we emphasize, is not required to show that the steps it took were ultimately successful rather, just that it took reasonable steps in an attempt to avoid the delay [75] The period of delay caused by any discrete exceptional events must be subtracted from the total period of delay for the purpose of determining whether the ceiling has been exceeded. Of course, the Crown must always be prepared to mitigate the delay resulting from a discrete exceptional circumstance. So too must the justice system. Within reason, the Crown and the justice system should be capable of

11 Page: 11 prioritizing cases that have faltered due to unforeseen events (see R. v. Vassell, 2016 SCC 26, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 625). Thus, any portion of the delay that the Crown and the system could reasonably have mitigated may not be subtracted (i.e. it may not be appropriate to subtract the entire period of delay occasioned by discrete exceptional events). [36] This distinction makes sense, of course. Both Morin and Jordan specifically recognized an obvious truth: some accused persons are not only content but would prefer to see their trials delayed for as long as possible. For the system to work, then, there should be no circumstance where the defence can benefit by causing delay. Imposing an obligation on the Crown and the justice system to mitigate delay caused by the defence has the potential for doing exactly that. [37] This is not to ignore that the new role of the Crown is to be both the responsible manager and the good shepherd of criminal prosecutions, obliged to pay attention to each case and move it through the system as expeditiously as possible. Here, the Crown was available for the first date offered for both the new trial and the sentencing, and otherwise did not add to any delay. I conclude it met its obligations. 3. Is sentencing to be included in determining the time to completion of trial? [38] In setting the presumptive ceiling at 30 months to the end of trial, Jordan referred to the issue of sentencing this way: [49] For cases going to trial in the superior court, the presumptive ceiling is 30 months from the charge to the actual or anticipated end of trial. 2...

12 Page: 12 2 This Court has held that s. 11(b) applies to sentencing proceedings (R. v. MacDougall, [1998] 3 S.C.R. 45). Some sentencing proceedings require significant time, for example, dangerous offender applications or situations in which expert reports are required, or extensive evidence is tendered. The issue of delay in sentencing, however, is not before us, and we make no comment about how this ceiling should apply to s. 11(b) applications brought after a conviction is entered, or whether additional time should be added to the ceiling in such cases. [39] In my view, this makes it clear that the Supreme Court of Canada was not intending to alter the law in this area; that is, the decision in R. v. MacDougall, [1998] 3 S.C.R. 45, continues to be authority. This is the interpretation applied by most of the decisions that have considered the question. See R. v. Patel, 2017 ONSC 5827; R. v. Dadmand, 2017 BCSC 1644; R. v. Warring, 2017 ABCA 128; R. v. Tsega, 2017 ONSC 3090; R. v. K.G.K., 2017 MBQB 96. [40] In MacDougall, the Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 11(b) applies to the period post-conviction and prior to sentence. However, in the postconviction phase of proceedings the interests engaged by s. 11(b) are more attenuated in the circumstances than in the pre-conviction phase. [41] The inherent time requirements of sentencing include the time required to prepare pre-sentence material, subpoena necessary witnesses and schedule the sentencing proceeding. For the reasons explained in the footnote in Jordan, above, the reasonableness of the inherent time requirements of sentencing must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Whether delay at this stage is unreasonable requires consideration of the length of delay, reasons for delay, any waiver by the accused and prejudice suffered by the accused (see

13 Page: 13 MacDougall, para. 60). It is of note as well that inherent time requirements of sentencing also did not fall within the pre-conviction periods established in Morin and Askov. [42] Here, the delay was due, in part to the time required to prepare the pre-sentence report, but also because I was not available as I was assigned to hear several lengthy criminal trials during the early part of The latter fact is an unfortunate reality in scheduling a sentencing: unlike a trial where one of many judges could be assigned, only the trial judge can hear the sentencing. [43] In the end, I conclude that the time from conviction to sentencing was not unreasonable. 4. Was Clemons right to be tried within a reasonable time violated? [44] The total time from charge to conviction was 49 months. When the 17- month delay resulting from the adjournment is deducted, the time remaining is 32 months. This is two months over the Jordan ceiling. [45] The transitional exceptional circumstance assessment applies to this case. It is a qualitative notion with two underlying principles: the parties cannot be judged by standards of which they had no notice; and change takes time (R. v. Cody, 2017 SCC 31, paras ; Jordan, paras ). [46] The assessment is contextual and must be sensitive to the manner in which the Morin framework was applied, and requires the good sense of trial judges to decide whether delay has been reasonable in any given case (Jordan, para. 98). The trial judge s knowledge of systemic and institutional

14 Page: 14 circumstances is essential, particularly in jurisdictions with significant problems with institutional delay, since such a reality constrains the Crown s behaviour. [47] Further, the system lawmakers, court administration and Crowns themselves needs time to respond to the new framework. Thus, even significant institutional delay will not automatically result in a stay of proceedings (Jordan, para. 97). [48] Recognizing the former reality, Cody made the point that, [70]... This Court's decision in R. v. Williamson, 2016 SCC 28, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 741, should not be read as discounting the important role that the seriousness of the offence and prejudice play under the transitional exceptional circumstance. The facts of Williamson were unusual, in that it involved a straightforward case and an accused person who made repeated efforts to expedite the proceedings, which efforts stood in contrast with the Crown's indifference (paras ). Therefore, despite the seriousness of the offence and the absence of prejudice, the delay exceeding the ceiling could not be justified under the transitional exceptional circumstance. This highlights that the parties' general level of diligence may also be an important transitional consideration. But the bottom line is that all of these factors should be taken into consideration as appropriate in the circumstances. [49] As for the Morin considerations, the case itself was not complex. It was agreed that the parties had sexual intercourse. The only question was whether it was consensual. The Crown called six witnesses; the defence called four witnesses. The case was set for a week but was completed in four days. [50] To be considered is the fact that Clemons had elected to be tried before a jury, the inherent time for which is always greater than a judge alone trial. As the transcript of the March 22 court appearance shows, the trial could have been

15 Page: 15 heard in April 2017 were it before a judge alone. This would have brought the total time period down to 27 months. [51] The delay otherwise was entirely institutional. The Crown was late with some disclosure, but this did not affect setting dates for either the preliminary inquiry or the trial. The matter proceeded without interruption. The real and overwhelming problem in this case was the significant delays endemic in the Thompson judicial centre. This was so both when the initial and subsequent trial dates were set. [52] This situation was the result of far more than the limited number of courtrooms at the Thompson courthouse, although that was one factor. Lack of availability of both Crown and defence counsel, limited experienced defence lawyers, the nature of the cases themselves a high number of serious and violent offences, including sexual assaults, which are often not capable of resolution and the challenges presented when prosecutions arise from situations in communities distant from Thompson, were all factors at play. [53] This court has been involved in concerted and focussed efforts to address the problem of delay in Thompson since This includes creation of a team of judges to oversee pre-trial and resolution conferences with a view to streamlining or resolving cases where appropriate; comprehensive review of all cases set for trial; centralization of scheduling; and outreach and consultation with members of the Bar, Department of Justice officials and the Provincial Court. The Law Society of Manitoba was also engaged, as part of an attempt to

16 Page: 16 address the limited number of lawyers practising in the north. These efforts were directed at bringing the length of time to trial in line with that in the Winnipeg judicial centre, which was operating on the basis of the Morin guidelines. [54] As was the case in every judicial centre, these efforts were re-examined and somewhat intensified after Jordan was decided. [55] As of the fall of 2017, the time from first appearance of a case in assignment court to trial, for the most part, is now well within or at least within the Jordan guidelines. Of course, indictable offences are a two-stage process, so delays at Provincial Court sometimes still impact the ultimate time to completion of trial. [56] In evaluating the Crown s response to the new time frames, the stage of the proceedings when Jordan was released is to be considered. The court in Cody directed: [71] When considering the transitional exceptional circumstance, trial judges should be mindful of what portion of the proceedings took place before or after Jordan was released. For aspects of the case that predated Jordan, the focus should be on reliance on factors that were relevant under the Morin framework, including the seriousness of the offence and prejudice. For delay that accrues after Jordan was released, the focus should instead be on the extent to which the parties and the courts had sufficient time to adapt (Jordan, at para. 96). [57] Here, the only possibility of changing course came at the January 2017 pre-trial conference. The defence advised that Mr. Clemons would be re-electing to judge alone. As a result, the time scheduled for trial was reduced to one week. The pre-trial memorandum makes no reference to any discussion about

17 Page: 17 consideration of an earlier trial date. Certainly, there was no request by the defence to this effect. In any event, given the ongoing efforts to utilize court time described above, it would be virtually certain that there would not be a week of court time available before the end of June. [58] So, while this pre-trial occurred approximately six months after the release of Jordan, given that the case was set for trial, absent an opening in the court schedule during the five months left until the end of the court term, there really was nothing that could be done by the Crown or the court. No case is an island, after all. [59] In light of all of the above, I find that the Crown did not fail in its obligations by not taking steps to try to advance the trial date. [60] As to other considerations, the prejudice from this delay was limited. Clemons was on bail while awaiting trial, so his liberty rights were minimally affected. It was not argued that trial fairness was affected. Certainly, the passage of time is always a factor in situations where witnesses are required to recall events, and this was true in this case. Ultimately, it was not a significant issue. It was made somewhat worse, however, by the fact that at least some of the defence witnesses gave statements to Mr. Mayer that were not transferred to Clemons new lawyer. As a result, these witnesses did not have access to them prior to giving their testimony. The fact that delay was not raised until a few weeks before sentencing suggests that prejudice was not a concern.

18 Page: 18 [61] The fact that at no time did the defence raise delay or take any active steps to move matters forward is also a consideration. At the pre-trial conference in September 2016, Clemons new counsel had not yet reviewed the preliminary inquiry transcript, nor was he able to advise of his position on any issues. [62] Finally, this is a serious charge. It involved non-consensual sexual intercourse with someone who was essentially a stranger. The public interest in proceeding with the prosecution is significant. [63] I note that there are several transitional cases from this court where delay in excess of 32 months has been held to be reasonable. These include R. v. Amyot and Emslie, 2016 MBQB 186, R. v. Richard, 2017 MBQB 11, R. v. Summerfield, 2016 MBQB 241. [64] For all of these reasons, then, I find that Mr. Clemons rights under s. 11(b) of the Charter were not violated. The motion is dismissed. J.

R. v. Cody: Trial within a reasonable time and enhancing efficiency

R. v. Cody: Trial within a reasonable time and enhancing efficiency R. v. Cody: Trial within a reasonable time and enhancing efficiency Kenneth Jull, Gardiner Roberts LLP The Supreme Court decision in Jordan 1 was a watershed decision that changed the balancing required

More information

PROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Longaphy, 2017 NSPC 67. v. Christopher Longaphy. Section 11(B) Charter - Decision - Unreasonable Delay

PROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Longaphy, 2017 NSPC 67. v. Christopher Longaphy. Section 11(B) Charter - Decision - Unreasonable Delay PROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Longaphy, 2017 NSPC 67 Date: 2017-11-21 Docket: 2668787, 2668788, 2668789, 2668790 Registry: Dartmouth Between: Her Majesty the Queen v. Christopher Longaphy

More information

1. 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

1. 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 information

PROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Bowser, 2016 NSPC 34. Her Majesty the Queen v. Joseph Wayne Bowser and Ricky Daniel Cameron

PROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Bowser, 2016 NSPC 34. Her Majesty the Queen v. Joseph Wayne Bowser and Ricky Daniel Cameron PROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Bowser, 2016 NSPC 34 Between: Date: April 14, 2016 Docket: 2379172-73, 2379175-76 Registry: Dartmouth Her Majesty the Queen v. Joseph Wayne Bowser and Ricky

More information

THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF MANITOBA. Charles Murray and Sari Daien, ) for the Crown - and ) ) Kevin Yaworski, ) )

THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF MANITOBA. Charles Murray and Sari Daien, ) for the Crown - and ) ) Kevin Yaworski, ) ) THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF MANITOBA Cite: 2016 MBPC 56 BETWEEN Her Majesty the Queen ) ) Charles Murray and Sari Daien, ) for the Crown - and ) ) Kevin Yaworski, ) ) ANNE KRAHN, A.C. P.J. Overview Self represented

More information

PRACTICE DIRECTIVES FOR CONTESTED APPLICATIONS IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF MANITOBA

PRACTICE 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 information

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF MANITOBA

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF MANITOBA On review from a decision of Provincial Court Judge, July 24, 2018 Date: 20190204 Docket: CR 18-15-00824 (Thompson Centre) Indexed as: R. v. Kelly-White Cited as: 2019 MBQB 22 COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF

More information

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

ONTARIO 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 information

To provide a continuum of innovative and cost effective legal services for people in need throughout Alberta.

To provide a continuum of innovative and cost effective legal services for people in need throughout Alberta. To provide a continuum of innovative and cost effective legal services for people in need throughout Alberta. Effective on Certificates Issued on or after November 1, 2009 Table of Contents Introduction...1

More information

Roster Lawyers Tariff of Fees

Roster 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 information

CRIMINAL RULES OF THE ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE RULE 1 GENERAL. (2) Dealing with proceedings justly and efficiently includes

CRIMINAL RULES OF THE ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE RULE 1 GENERAL. (2) Dealing with proceedings justly and efficiently includes CRIMINAL RULES OF THE ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE RULE 1 GENERAL Fundamental objective 1.1 (1) The fundamental objective of these rules is to ensure that proceedings in the Ontario Court of Justice are dealt

More information

PRE-TRIAL COORDINATION PROTOCOL ADULT CHARGES

PRE-TRIAL COORDINATION PROTOCOL ADULT CHARGES PRE-TRIAL COORDINATION PROTOCOL ADULT CHARGES This Protocol is subject to change. It is expected that over time changes will be made and the Protocol will be amended. Please refer to our website at www.manitobacourts.mb.ca

More information

After the initial charges are laid against the accused the trial should take place: After Preliminary inquiry: within six months to one year

After the initial charges are laid against the accused the trial should take place: After Preliminary inquiry: within six months to one year The Court Process: Time Frames and Expected Proceedings www.owjn.org/issues/assault/qa2.htm After the initial charges are laid against the accused the trial should take place: After Preliminary inquiry:

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA Citation: R v JMS, 2018 MBCA 117 Date: 20181102 Docket: AR17-30-08983 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA Coram: Mr. Justice Marc M. Monnin Madam Justice Diana M. Cameron Madam Justice Karen I. Simonsen

More information

SUPREME 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. 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 information

NOVA SCOTIA PROVINCIAL COURT RULES

NOVA SCOTIA PROVINCIAL COURT RULES NOVA SCOTIA PROVINCIAL COURT RULES (Implementation Date: January 1, 2013) TABLE OF CONTENTS Rule 1 General 1.1 Fundamental Objective 1.2 Scope of Rules 1.3 Definitions Rule 2 Applications 2.1 Notice of

More information

SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR. PRACTICE DIRECTIVE P.D. (Crim.) No

SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR. PRACTICE DIRECTIVE P.D. (Crim.) No SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR PRACTICE DIRECTIVE P.D. (Crim.) No. 2018-01 RULES AFFECTED: Criminal Proceedings Rules of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, r. 6, and 9-15 EFFECTIVE

More information

PUBLICATION BANS FIRST ISSUED: NOVEMBER 23, 2015 EDITED / DISTRIBUTED: NOVEMBER 23, 2015

PUBLICATION BANS FIRST ISSUED: NOVEMBER 23, 2015 EDITED / DISTRIBUTED: NOVEMBER 23, 2015 DOCUMENT TITLE: PUBLICATION BANS NATURE OF DOCUMENT: PRACTICE NOTE FIRST ISSUED: NOVEMBER 23, 2015 LAST SUBSTANTIVE REVISION: EDITED / DISTRIBUTED: NOVEMBER 23, 2015 NOTE: THIS POICY DOCUMENT IS TO BE

More information

PORTAGE la PRAIRIE RESOLUTION DOCKET PROTOCOL ADULT CHARGES

PORTAGE la PRAIRIE RESOLUTION DOCKET PROTOCOL ADULT CHARGES PORTAGE la PRAIRIE RESOLUTION DOCKET PROTOCOL ADULT CHARGES April 2010 PORTAGE la PRAIRIE RESOLUTION DOCKET PROTOCOL TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE 3 APPLICATION OF PROTOCOL 3 JUDGES DOCKET (MONDAYS) 4 STAFF

More information

Policy of the Provincial Court of British Columbia

Policy of the Provincial Court of British Columbia Information Regarding Bans on Publication Policy Effective Date: Policy Code: February 28, 2011 ACC-3 Scope of Application: Applies to Provincial Court of proceedings. Purpose of Policy To provide a general

More information

NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: R. v. Simpson, 2018 NSCA 25. v. Her Majesty the Queen. Restriction on Publication: of the Criminal Code

NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: R. v. Simpson, 2018 NSCA 25. v. Her Majesty the Queen. Restriction on Publication: of the Criminal Code NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: R. v. Simpson, 2018 NSCA 25 Date: 20180316 Docket: CAC 463697 Registry: Halifax Between: Paul Wayne Simpson Appellent v. Her Majesty the Queen Respondent Restriction

More information

COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA

COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA Summary conviction appeal from a Judicial Justice of the Peace and Provincial Court Judge Date: 20181031 Docket: CR 17-01-36275 (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as: R. v. Grant Cited as: 2018 MBQB 171 COURT OF

More information

YOU VE been CHARGED. with a CRIME What YOU. NEED to KNOW

YOU VE been CHARGED. with a CRIME What YOU. NEED to KNOW YOU VE been CHARGED with a CRIME What YOU NEED to KNOW 1 This booklet is intended to provide general information only. If you require specific legal advice, please consult the appropriate legislation or

More information

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE COURT FILE No.: Regional Municipality of York File #00-86401409-90 Citation: R. v. Vellone, 2009 ONCJ 150 ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE IN THE MATTER OF an appeal under of the Provincial Offences Act BETWEEN:

More information

A Survivor s Guide. to Sexual Assault Prosecution. Nova Scotia Public Prosecution Service

A Survivor s Guide. to Sexual Assault Prosecution. Nova Scotia Public Prosecution Service A Survivor s Guide to Sexual Assault Prosecution Nova Scotia Public Prosecution Service A Survivor s Guide to Sexual Assault Prosecution Nova Scotia Public Prosecution Service Table of Contents Contact

More information

Defending Yourself. Assault. Defending yourself. Defending yourself. Defending yourself. Defending yourself. September 2015

Defending Yourself. Assault. Defending yourself. Defending yourself. Defending yourself. Defending yourself. September 2015 Defending Yourself Assault September 2015 Defending yourself Defending yourself Defending yourself Defending yourself July 2012 After you ve been charged: A step-by-step chart The flowchart under this

More information

Each problem that I solved became a rule which served afterwards to solve other problems.

Each problem that I solved became a rule which served afterwards to solve other problems. CONDUCT OF CRIMINAL LITIGATION Each problem that I solved became a rule which served afterwards to solve other problems. Basic Principles of the Policy - Rene Descartes (1596-1650), "Discours de la Methode"

More information

STUDENT LEGAL SERVICES TRAFFIC OFFENCES A GUIDE TO THE LAW IN ALBERTA REGARDING OF EDMONTON COPYRIGHT AND DISCLAIMER

STUDENT LEGAL SERVICES TRAFFIC OFFENCES A GUIDE TO THE LAW IN ALBERTA REGARDING OF EDMONTON COPYRIGHT AND DISCLAIMER COPYRIGHT AND DISCLAIMER A GUIDE TO THE LAW IN ALBERTA REGARDING TRAFFIC version: 2009 STUDENT LEGAL SERVICES OF EDMONTON GENERAL All information is provided for general knowledge purposes only and is

More information

An Introduction. to the. Federal Public Defender s Office. for the Districts of. South Dakota and North Dakota

An Introduction. to the. Federal Public Defender s Office. for the Districts of. South Dakota and North Dakota An Introduction to the Federal Public Defender s Office for the Districts of South Dakota and North Dakota Federal Public Defender's Office for the Districts of South Dakota and North Dakota Table of Contents

More information

HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE v. D.P. AND S.M. [2001] ScotHC 115 (16th February, 2001)

HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE v. D.P. AND S.M. [2001] ScotHC 115 (16th February, 2001) HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE v. D.P. AND S.M. [2001] ScotHC 115 (16th February, 2001) HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY OPINION OF LORD REED in the cause HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE against D P and S M For the Crown: S E

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN DIVISION Case :-cv-00-jvs-dfm Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0 SHELBY PHILLIPS, III, et al. v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN DIVISION Plaintiff(s), UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA) BARRETT RICHARD JORDAN and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN and Court File No. 36068 APPELLANT (Appellant) RESPONDENT (Respondent)

More information

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF MANITOBA

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF MANITOBA Origin: Appeal from a decision of the Master of the Court of Queen's Bench, dated June 5, 2013 Date: 20131213 Docket: CI 13-01-81367 (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as: Jewish Community Campus of Winnipeg Inc.

More information

COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA

COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA On review from a committal to stand trial on a charge of second degree murder by a preliminary inquiry judge dated September 13, 2017. Date: 20180302 Docket: CR 17-01-36388 (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as:

More information

COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA

COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA Date: November 29, 2018 Docket: CI 10-01-68799 (Winnipeg Centre Indexed as: Biomedical Commercialization Canada Inc. v. Health Media Inc.; Health Media Network Inc. v. Biomedical Commercialization Canada

More information

Case Name: R. v. Dove. Between Her Majesty the Queen, and Wally Dove and Sonya Zenz. [2004] O.J. No [2004] O.T.C [2005] 1 C.T.C.

Case Name: R. v. Dove. Between Her Majesty the Queen, and Wally Dove and Sonya Zenz. [2004] O.J. No [2004] O.T.C [2005] 1 C.T.C. Page 1 Case Name: R. v. Dove Between Her Majesty the Queen, and Wally Dove and Sonya Zenz [2004] O.J. No. 4992 [2004] O.T.C. 1078 [2005] 1 C.T.C. 299 66 W.C.B. (2d) 593 Court File No. CrimJ(F)6535/02 Counsel:

More information

To obtain additional copies of this document, or to ask how to contact Victim Services in your area, contact:

To obtain additional copies of this document, or to ask how to contact Victim Services in your area, contact: October 2013 To obtain additional copies of this document, or to ask how to contact Victim Services in your area, contact: Victims Services Policy and Program Development Branch Alberta Justice and Solicitor

More information

Case Comment: Ictensev v. The Minister of Employement and Immigration

Case 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 information

Bill C-337 Judicial Accountability through Sexual Assault Law Training Act

Bill C-337 Judicial Accountability through Sexual Assault Law Training Act Bill C-337 Judicial Accountability through Sexual Assault Law Training Act CANADIAN BAR ASSOCIATION CRIMINAL JUSTICE SECTION April 2017 500-865 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, ON, Canada K1S 5S8 tel/tél : 613.237.2925

More information

ACCESS TO CRIMINAL JUSTICE Divergent Trends in the Legal Profession DISCLOSURE REVISITED

ACCESS 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 information

THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA

THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA Claim No. ANUHCV 2011/0069 In the Matter of the Constitution of Antigua & Barbuda. -and- In the Matter of an Application

More information

Legal Supplement Part B Vol. 55, No st April, RULES THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE RULES, 2016

Legal Supplement Part B Vol. 55, No st April, RULES THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE RULES, 2016 Legal Supplement Part B Vol. 55, No. 45 21st April, 2016 181 LEGAL NOTICE NO. 55 REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT, CHAP. 12:02 RULES MADE BY THE RULES COMMITTEE UNDER SECTION

More information

RULE 82 CRIMINAL APPEAL RULE INTERPRETATION AND DEFINITIONS

RULE 82 CRIMINAL APPEAL RULE INTERPRETATION AND DEFINITIONS RULE 82 CRIMINAL APPEAL RULE INTERPRETATION AND DEFINITIONS 82.01 (1) In this rule, unless the context requires otherwise: "appeal" includes an application for leave to appeal and a crossappeal; (appel)

More information

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

ONTARIO 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 information

Criminal Justice System Modernization Strategy

Criminal Justice System Modernization Strategy Criminal Justice System Modernization Strategy March 2018 Modernizing Manitoba s Criminal Justice System Minister s Message As Minister of Justice and Attorney General, I am accountable for the work that

More information

Department of Environment, Labour and Justice

Department of Environment, Labour and Justice Cover Department of Environment, Labour and Justice Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction & Intake...1 2.0 Information, Emotional Support and Referral............................. 1 3.0 Assistance Under the

More information

5.9 PRIVATE PROSECUTIONS

5.9 PRIVATE PROSECUTIONS OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS GUIDELINE OF THE DIRECTOR ISSUED UNDER SECTION 3(3)(c) OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS ACT March 1, 2014 -2- TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION... 2

More information

IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2011 SKPC 180 Date: November 21, 2011 Information: Location: North Battleford, Saskatchewan

IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2011 SKPC 180 Date: November 21, 2011 Information: Location: North Battleford, Saskatchewan IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2011 SKPC 180 Date: November 21, 2011 Information: 24417083 Location: North Battleford, Saskatchewan Between: Her Majesty the Queen - and - Jesse John

More information

COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA

COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA Date: 20181121 Docket: CI 16-01-04438 (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as: Shirritt-Beaumont v. Frontier School Division Cited as: 2018 MBQB 177 COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA BETWEEN: ) APPEARANCES: ) RAYMOND

More information

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: DISCOVERY

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: DISCOVERY CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: DISCOVERY Judge Thomas R. Swvabey* It goes without saying that every person charged with the commission of a criminal offence should be given the opportunity of discovering both the

More information

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Colpitts, 2017 NSSC 22. Robert Blois Colpitts. Her Majesty the Queen MID-TRIAL RULING TRIAL MANAGEMENT

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Colpitts, 2017 NSSC 22. Robert Blois Colpitts. Her Majesty the Queen MID-TRIAL RULING TRIAL MANAGEMENT SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Colpitts, 2017 NSSC 22 Date: 20170124 Docket: CRH 346068 Registry: Halifax Between: Robert Blois Colpitts v. Her Majesty the Queen MID-TRIAL RULING TRIAL MANAGEMENT

More information

Defending Yourself. Mischief. Defending yourself. Defending yourself. Defending yourself. Defending yourself

Defending Yourself. Mischief. Defending yourself. Defending yourself. Defending yourself. Defending yourself Defending Yourself Defending yourself Mischief Defending yourself Defending yourself Defending yourself September 2015 After you ve been charged: A step-by-step chart The flowchart under this flap shows

More information

COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA

COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA Date: 20171206 Docket: CR 15-01-35066 (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as: R. v. Ajak Cited as: 2017 MBQB 202 COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA BETWEEN: ) APPEARANCES: ) HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN ) Libby Standil

More information

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT J. WILSON, KARAKATSANIS, AND BRYANT JJ. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT J. WILSON, KARAKATSANIS, AND BRYANT JJ. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Ministry of Attorney General and Toronto Star and Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, 2010 ONSC 991 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 34/09 DATE: 20100326 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL

More information

COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA

COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA Date: 20180405 Docket: CR 15-01-35037 (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as: R. v. Stuart Cited as: 2018 MBQB 54 COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA B E T W E E N: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, ) Counsel: ) ) for the Crown

More information

PRACTICE CHECKLISTS MANUAL

PRACTICE CHECKLISTS MANUAL LAW SOCIETY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA CRIMINAL PROCEDURE INTRODUCTION Purpose and currency of checklist. This checklist is designed to be used with the CLIENT IDENTIFICATION AND VERIFICATION PROCEDURE (A-1)

More information

ALBERTA OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER ORDER F November 26, 2015 ALBERTA JUSTICE AND SOLICITOR GENERAL

ALBERTA OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER ORDER F November 26, 2015 ALBERTA JUSTICE AND SOLICITOR GENERAL ALBERTA OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER ORDER F2015-34 November 26, 2015 ALBERTA JUSTICE AND SOLICITOR GENERAL Case File Number F6898 Office URL: www.oipc.ab.ca Summary: The Applicant

More information

Alberta (Attorney General) v. Krushell, 2003 ABQB 252 Date: Action No

Alberta (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 information

The Criminal Justice System: From Charges to Sentencing

The Criminal Justice System: From Charges to Sentencing The Criminal Justice System: From Charges to Sentencing The Key Principles The aim the system is to protect and to regulate society, to punish offenders and to offer rehabilitation; The Government, through

More information

ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION

ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION BAIL HEARINGS ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Saskatoon Criminal Defence Lawyers Association December 1, 1998 Fall Seminar, 1998: Bail Hearings and Sentencing Also available to members at the SCDLA Web site: http://www.lexicongraphics.com/scdla.htm

More information

Bail Amendment Bill 2012

Bail 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 information

PRE-TRIAL COORDINATION PROTOCOL

PRE-TRIAL COORDINATION PROTOCOL PRE-TRIAL COORDINATION PROTOCOL This Protocol is subject to change. It is expected that as the Project proceeds, changes will be made and the Protocol will be amended. Please refer to our website at www.manitobacourts.mb.ca

More information

Citation: R. v. R.C. (P.) Date: PESCTD 22 Docket: GSC Registry: Charlottetown

Citation: 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 information

Order F Ministry of Justice. Hamish Flanagan Adjudicator. March 18, 2015

Order F Ministry of Justice. Hamish Flanagan Adjudicator. March 18, 2015 Order F15-12 Ministry of Justice Hamish Flanagan Adjudicator March 18, 2015 CanLII Cite: 2015 BCIPC 12 Quicklaw Cite: [2015] B.C.I.P.C.D. No. 12 Summary: The applicant requested records from the Ministry

More information

Third Party Records Disclosure Applications s. 278 Criminal Code. D. Brian Newton, Q.C.

Third Party Records Disclosure Applications s. 278 Criminal Code. D. Brian Newton, Q.C. Third Party Records Disclosure Applications s. 278 Criminal Code D. Brian Newton, Q.C. Preamble Several years ago, I was approached by Victim Services of the Department of Justice in regards to providing

More information

JUDGE GABRIELLE N. SANDERS Courtroom Guidelines, Procedures and Expectations For Osceola County Civil Division 60-G, Courtroom 4B

JUDGE GABRIELLE N. SANDERS Courtroom Guidelines, Procedures and Expectations For Osceola County Civil Division 60-G, Courtroom 4B STATE OF FLORIDA NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA COUNTIES OF ORANGE AND OSCEOLA OSCEOLA COUNTY COURTHOUSE 2 COURTHOUSE SQUARE, SUITE 6425 KISSIMMEE, FLORIDA 34741 (407) 742-2495 WWW.NINTHCIRCUIT.ORG

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA Citation: R v Giesbrecht, 2018 MBCA 40 Date: 20180413 Docket: AR17-30-08912 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA B ETWEEN : ) G. G. Brodsky, Q.C. and ) Z. B. Kinahan HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN ) for the Applicant

More information

Accountability, Independence and Consultation Director of Military Prosecutions Policy Directive

Accountability, Independence and Consultation Director of Military Prosecutions Policy Directive Accountability, Independence and Consultation Director of Military Prosecutions Policy Directive Directive #: 010/00 Original Date: 15 Mar 00 Subject: Accountability, Independence and Consultation Cross

More information

FACTUM OF THE APPLICANT

FACTUM OF THE APPLICANT Court File No. 12821-15 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N : TANNER CURRIE -and- Applicant THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO, HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, and CHRISTOPHER LABRECHE Respondents FACTUM

More information

Bill C-10: Criminal Code Amendments (Mental Disorder) NATIONAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE SECTION CANADIAN BAR ASSOCIATION

Bill C-10: Criminal Code Amendments (Mental Disorder) NATIONAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE SECTION CANADIAN BAR ASSOCIATION Bill C-10: Criminal Code Amendments (Mental Disorder) NATIONAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE SECTION CANADIAN BAR ASSOCIATION November 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS Bill C-10: Criminal Code Amendments (Mental Disorder) PREFACE...

More information

2 [4] And further that Angelica Cechirc, Alexander Verbon, and Pavel Muzhikov and Stanislav Kavalenka, between October the 28 th, 2003, and March the

2 [4] And further that Angelica Cechirc, Alexander Verbon, and Pavel Muzhikov and Stanislav Kavalenka, between October the 28 th, 2003, and March the Info # 04-01374, 04-01579, 05-01037, 04-01373 Citation: R. v. Muzhikov et al., 2005 ONCJ 67 ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Mr. Michael Holme for the Crown AND PAVEL MUZHIKOV STANISLAV

More information

Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill 2010

Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill 2010 Digest No. 1819 Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill 2010 Date of Introduction: 15 November 2010 Portfolio: Select Committee: Published: 18 November 2010 by John McSoriley BA LL.B, Barrister,

More information

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA. LeBel J.

SUPREME 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 information

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT In Case No. 2012-0663, State of New Hampshire v. Jeffrey Gray, the court on December 7, 2017, issued the following order: The defendant, Jeffrey Gray, appeals his

More information

CASE PROCESSING IN CRIMINAL COURTS, 1999/00 by Jennifer Pereira and Craig Grimes

CASE PROCESSING IN CRIMINAL COURTS, 1999/00 by Jennifer Pereira and Craig Grimes Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-002-XIE Vol. 22 no. 1 CASE PROCESSING IN CRIMINAL COURTS, 1999/00 by Jennifer Pereira and Craig Grimes Highlights In 1999/00, adult criminal courts in 9 provinces and

More information

The Criminal Court System. Law 521 Chapter Seven

The Criminal Court System. Law 521 Chapter Seven The Criminal Court System Law 521 Chapter Seven The Feds make criminal law and procedure. Criminal Court Structure Provinces responsible for organizing, administering, and maintaining the criminal court

More information

Who s who in a Criminal Trial

Who s who in a Criminal Trial Mock Criminal Trial Scenario Who s who in a Criminal Trial ACCUSED The accused is the person who is alleged to have committed the criminal offence, and who has been charged with committing it. Before being

More information

DRUNKENNESS AS A DEFENCE TO MURDER

DRUNKENNESS AS A DEFENCE TO MURDER Page 1 DRUNKENNESS AS A DEFENCE TO MURDER Criminal Law Conference 2005 Halifax, Nova Scotia Prepared by: Joel E. Pink, Q.C. Joel E. Pink, Q.C. & Associates 1583 Hollis Street, Ste 300 Halifax, NS B3J 2P8

More information

CRIMINAL LAW PROFESSIONAL STANDARD #2

CRIMINAL 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 information

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Ru, 2018 NSSC 155. Dai Ru. Her Majesty the Queen

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Ru, 2018 NSSC 155. Dai Ru. Her Majesty the Queen SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Ru, 2018 NSSC 155 Date: 20180622 Docket: Hfx No. 472559 Registry: Halifax Between: Dai Ru v. Appellant Her Majesty the Queen Respondent Judge: Heard: Counsel:

More information

Revision history (November 2007)

Revision history (November 2007) Criminal Tariff Revision history (November 2007) Date issued Replaced pages Effective date 11/07 all pages 11/07 11/06 all pages, Guide to Billing, Criminal Billing Form, CC 11/06 Section 278 Victim Representation

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI ST. JOSEPH DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI ST. JOSEPH DIVISION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI ST. JOSEPH DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. No. 09-00121-01-CR-SJ-DGK GILBERTO LARA-RUIZ, a/k/a HILL Defendant.

More information

MEMORANDUM TO COUNCIL

MEMORANDUM TO COUNCIL MEMORANDUM TO COUNCIL From: Lawrence Rubin Date: March 23, 2018 Subject: Professional Standards (Criminal) Committee Standard No. 3: Defence Obligations Regarding Disclosure FOR: APPROVAL INTRODUCTION

More information

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: R. v. Vellone, 2011 ONCA 785 DATE: 20111214 DOCKET: C50397 MacPherson, Simmons and Blair JJ.A. BETWEEN Her Majesty the Queen Ex Rel. The Regional Municipality of York

More information

Guidance For Legal Representatives

Guidance For Legal Representatives Guidance For Legal Representatives Criminal Cases Review Commission Guidance for Legal Representatives This document is designed to help legal representatives who may be approached in relation to applications

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as State v. Harrison, 2011-Ohio-3258.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 95666 STATE OF OHIO vs. PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE LORENZO HARRISON

More information

Proposal. Budget sensitive. In confidence. Office of the Minister of Justice. Chair. Cabinet Social Policy Committee REFORM OF FAMILY VIOLENCE LAW

Proposal. Budget sensitive. In confidence. Office of the Minister of Justice. Chair. Cabinet Social Policy Committee REFORM OF FAMILY VIOLENCE LAW Budget sensitive In confidence Office of the Minister of Justice Chair Cabinet Social Policy Committee REFORM OF FAMILY VIOLENCE LAW Paper Three: Prosecuting family violence Proposal 1. This paper is the

More information

SUPREME 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: 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 information

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 18, 2005

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 18, 2005 CRIMINAL JUSTICE BRANCH, MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL CROWN COUNSEL POLICY MANUAL ARCS/ORCS FILE NUMBER: 55820-00 (and issue specific) SUBJECT: Legal Advice to the Police POLICY Statement of Principle

More information

PROVINCIAL 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. 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 information

A PROTOCOL ISSUED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE QUEEN S BENCH DIVISION SETTING OUT THE PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED IN THE VICTIMS ADVOCATE PILOT AREAS

A PROTOCOL ISSUED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE QUEEN S BENCH DIVISION SETTING OUT THE PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED IN THE VICTIMS ADVOCATE PILOT AREAS A PROTOCOL ISSUED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE QUEEN S BENCH DIVISION SETTING OUT THE PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED IN THE VICTIMS ADVOCATE PILOT AREAS General Principles This protocol provides a description of

More information

Canadian soldiers are entitled to the rights and freedoms they fight to uphold.

Canadian soldiers are entitled to the rights and freedoms they fight to uphold. Canadian soldiers are entitled to the rights and freedoms they fight to uphold. This report is a critical analysis Bill C-41, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments

More information

September 1, 2015 Le 1 er septembre 2015 DISCLOSURE

September 1, 2015 Le 1 er septembre 2015 DISCLOSURE OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL CABINET DU PROCUREUR GÉNÉRAL PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS OPERATIONAL MANUAL MANUEL DES OPÉRATIONS DE POURSUITES PUBLIQUES TYPE OF DOCUMENT TYPE DE DOCUMENT : Policy Politique CHAPTER

More information

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT LAW DIVISION JUDGE RAYMOND W. MITCHELL STANDING ORDER.

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT LAW DIVISION JUDGE RAYMOND W. MITCHELL STANDING ORDER. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT LAW DIVISION JUDGE RAYMOND W. MITCHELL STANDING ORDER March 29, 2012 This Standing Order supercedes all prior Standing Orders regarding pending

More information

Index. All references are to page numbers. assault de minimis non curat lex defence, 32 police officer, on a, 7

Index. All references are to page numbers. assault de minimis non curat lex defence, 32 police officer, on a, 7 Index All references are to page numbers. A Aboriginal sentencing principles Aboriginal women, 291 basic principles, 282 generally, 282 manslaughter, 291, 293 practical framework, 286 street gangs, 293

More information

MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCES: HANDCUFFING THE PRISONER OR THE JUDGE?

MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCES: HANDCUFFING THE PRISONER OR THE JUDGE? MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCES: HANDCUFFING THE PRISONER OR THE JUDGE?.THE CANADIAN EXPERIENCE SO FAR American Judges Association, Annual Educational Conference October 7, 2014 Las Vegas, Nevada Judge Catherine

More information

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 139 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985.

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 139 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985. NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 139 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA142/07 [2007] NZCA 424 THE QUEEN v GEORGE DARREN

More information

OBJECTION YOUR HONOUR!

OBJECTION YOUR HONOUR! OBJECTION YOUR HONOUR! ROBERT S. HARRISON JENNIFER McALEER FASKEN MARTINEAU DuMOULIN LLP THE BASICS What is an Objection? By definition an objection is an interruption. It should only be made when it is

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION GOVERNMENT'S PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION GOVERNMENT'S PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 12-00075-01-CR-W-DW MARCUS D. GAMMAGE, Defendant. GOVERNMENT'S

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA Citation: City of Winnipeg v Innocent Vision Inc, Date: 20180813 2018 MBCA 76 Docket: AR18-30-09058 B ETWEEN : IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA ) R. M. McElhoes CITY OF WINNIPEG ) for the Applicant )

More information