British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Cronin, P.C.J., et al., (1997) 88 B.C.A.C. 280 (CA)

• Judge: McEachern, C.J.B.C., Lambert and Esson, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: March 20, 1997
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (1997), 88 B.C.A.C. 280 (CA)

B.C. v. Cronin, P.C.J. (1997), 88 B.C.A.C. 280 (CA);

    144 W.A.C. 280

MLB headnote and full text

The Attorney General of British Columbia (appellant) v. His Honour Judge Cronin, A judge of the Provincial Court of British Columbia, Steven J. Simonyi-Gindele and Robert Andrew McNeilly (respondents)

(CA020660)

Indexed As: British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Cronin, P.C.J., et al.

British Columbia Court of Appeal

McEachern, C.J.B.C., Lambert and Esson, JJ.A.

March 20, 1997.

Summary:

A preliminary inquiry judge discharged two accused on charges of stock market fraud as there was insufficient evidence for committals. A Supreme Court judge dis­missed the Crown's application for certiorari and mandamus, holding that although the preliminary inquiry judge made errors and reached wrong conclusions, they were not jurisdictional errors. The Crown appealed, alleging that the errors were jurisdictional where the judge made credibility findings, preferred evidence of one witness over another and weighed the evidence.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, Lambert, J.A., dissenting, allowed the appeal where the preliminary judge's errors were jurisdictional. The court set aside the dis­charges and remitted the matter to the Pro­vincial Court for completion of the prelimi­nary inquiry.

Criminal Law - Topic 3535

Preliminary inquiry - Jurisdiction - Excess of jurisdiction - The British Columbia Court of Appeal stated that: "... a prelimi­nary inquiry judge must analyze the evi­dence for the purpose of determining whether it had probative value. ... How­ever, it is not perm­issible, for the judge to imm­unize a deci­sion by correctly instruc­ting himself or herself on the appropriate test if the ulti­mate decision results from rejecting or weighing the evidence, decid­ing ques­tions of credibility or drawing inferences from facts established by the evidence. ... the difference between legal and jurisdic­tional error is really a question of the process followed by the judge in his or her con­sideration." - See paragraph 39.

Criminal Law - Topic 3535

Preliminary inquiry - Jurisdiction - Excess of jurisdiction - A preliminary inquiry judge discharged two accused on charges of stock market fraud as there was insuffi­cient evidence for committals - A Supreme Court judge dismissed the Crown's application for certiorari and mandamus, holding that the judge did not make jurisdictional errors where he instructed himself upon the proper test, but reached wrong conclusions - The Crown appealed, alleging that the errors were jurisdictional where the judge made credi­bility findings, preferred evidence of one witness over another and weighed the evidence - The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal - The errors were clearly jurisdictional where the judge usurped the functions of the trial court - Esson, J.A., concurring in the result, stated that excess of jurisdiction could be deter­mined by what was done, and not by what was said to be done - See paragraphs 24 to 40.

Criminal Law - Topic 3613

Preliminary inquiry - Adjudication and review - Judicial review of discharge order - [See second Criminal Law - Topic 3535 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Dubois, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 366; 66 N.R. 289; 41 Man.R.(2d) 1; [1986] 3 W.W.R. 577, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Mezzo, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 802; 68 N.R. 1; 43 Man.R.(2d) 161; 52 C.R.(3d) 113, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Monteleone, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 154; 78 N.R. 377; 23 O.A.C. 241; 35 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 32].

United States of America v. Shephard, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 1067; 9 N.R. 215, refd to. [para. 33].

United States of America v. Wagner (No. 2) (1995), 67 B.C.A.C. 119; 111 W.A.C. 119; 104 C.C.C.(3d) 66 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1996), 204 N.R. 74; 84 B.C.A.C. 80; 137 W.A.C. 80, refd to. [paras. 34, 80].

R. v. Marshall (1990), 5 C.R.R.(2d) 380 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Dubois, [1983] 1 W.W.R. 97; 18 Man.R.(2d) 90 (C.A.), reving. [1982] 2 W.W.R. 662; 15 Man.R.(2d) 100 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Nat Bell Liquors Ltd., [1922] 2 A.C. 128 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 56].

R. v. Kopan (1975), 3 B.C.L.R. 102 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 58].

R. v. Patterson, [1970] S.C.R. 409, refd to. [para. 59].

R. v. Martin, Simard and Desjardins, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 511; 20 N.R. 373; 41 C.C.C.(2d) 308, affing in part (1978), 41 C.C.C.(2d) 336 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 59].

R. v Herrell (1898), 12 Man. L.R. 198, refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Skogman, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 93; 54 N.R. 34, affing. (1982), 66 C.C.C.(2d) 14 (B.C.C.A.), reving. (1981), 62 C.C.C.(2d) 385 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326; 130 N.R. 277; 120 A.R. 161; 8 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 80].

R. v. Odell (1913), 22 C.C.C. 39 (Que. S.P.), refd to. [para. 80].

Goodman, Re (1916), 26 C.C.C. 254 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 80].

R. v. Cowden (1947), 90 C.C.C. 101 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 80].

Reid, Re (1954), 110 C.C.C. 260 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 80].

Shumiatcher, Re, [1964] 3 C.C.C. 359 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 80].

R. v. McKibbon, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 131; 52 N.R. 81; 3 O.A.C. 85, refd to [para. 80].

R. v. Corbett, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 275; 1 N.R. 258, refd to. [para. 80].

R. v. Yebes, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 168; 78 N.R. 351, refd to. [para. 80].

R. v. Burke (J.)(No. 3), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 474; 194 N.R. 247; 139 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 147; 433 A.P.R. 147, refd to. [para. 80].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 548(1)(a), sect. 548(1)(b) [para. 24].

Counsel:

Gail M. Dickson and V. Victor Svacek, for the appellant;

Leonard T. Doust, Q.C., and Bronson Toy, for the respondent, Steven J. Simonyi-Gindele;

No one appearing for Robert Andrew NcNeilly.

This appeal was heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on October 28 and 29, 1996, before McEachern, C.J.B.C., Lambert and Esson, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal.

On March 20, 1997, the judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered and the following opinions were filed:

McEachern, C.J.B.C. - see paragraphs 1 to 40;

Esson, J.A. - see paragraphs 41 to 74;

Lambert, J.A., dissenting - see para­graphs 75 to 89.