Balderstone v. R. et al., (1983) 23 Man.R.(2d) 125 (CA)

• Judge: Monnin, C.J.M., Huband and O'Sullivan, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
• Case Date: March 09, 1983
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (1983), 23 Man.R.(2d) 125 (CA);1983 CanLII 2803 (MB CA);4 DLR (4th) 162;[1983] 6 WWR 438;8 CCC (3d) 532;23 Man R (2d) 125;6 CRR 356

Balderstone v. R. (1983), 23 Man.R.(2d) 125 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Balderstone v. R. and Manitoba, Attorney General of; Play-All Ltd., Nellis and Bricker v. Penner, Manitoba, Attorney General of and R.

(Suit No. 404/82)

Indexed As: Balderstone v. R. et al.

Manitoba Court of Appeal

Monnin, C.J.M., Huband and O'Sullivan, JJ.A.

September 12, 1983.

Summary:

The accused were charged with conspiracy to defraud and corrupt, but were discharged after a preliminary inquiry. The Attorney General then preferred an indictment under s. 507(3)(b) of the Criminal Code, charging them with the same offence. The accused applied to quash or stay the indictment.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, in a judgment reported at 19 Man.R.(2d) 321, dismissed the application. The accused appealed.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 3132

Trials, due process and fair hearings - Criminal proceedings - Preferring indictment - Right to be heard - The Manitoba Court of Appeal held that the Attorney General had no obligation to hear an accused before exercising his discretion to prefer an indictment under s. 507(3)(b) of the Criminal Code of Canada - See paragraph 26.

Criminal Law - Topic 4264

Procedure - Indictment - Preferring of - Review of - The Manitoba Court of Appeal held that the exercise of the Attorney General's discretion to prefer an indictment under s. 507 of the Criminal Code of Canada was an exercise of executive authority, which was not subject to review by the courts - See paragraphs 34 to 38.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Stolar (1983), 20 Man.R.(2d) 132, folld. [paras. 2, 12 to 15].

R. v. Belton, [1983] 2 W.W.R. 472; 19 Man.R.(2d) 132; 31 C.R.(3d) 223, refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. Rourke, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 1021; 16 N.R. 181; 38 C.R.N.S. 268, refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Arseneau (1974), 9 N.B.R.(2d) 391; 1 A.P.R. 391; 21 C.C.C.(2d) 432, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Philbin and Henderson, [1978] 1 W.W.R. 122, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Harrigan and Graham (1978), 6 A.R. 506; 33 C.R.N.S. 60, refd to. [para. 11].

Lafleur v. Minister of National Revenue for Canada et al., 49 C.R. 333, refd to. [para. 29].

Padfield et al. v. Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Others, [1968] 1 All E.R. 694, refd to. [para. 31].

Martineau v. Matsqui Institution Inmate Disciplinary Board (No. 2) (1980), 30 N.R. 119; 13 C.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Sednyk (1956), 64 Man. R. 7, refd to. [para. 31].

Re Warren and The Queen (1981), 61 C.C.C.(2d) 65, refd to. [para. 31].

Re Chabot and The Queen (1981), 65 C.C.C.(2d) 123, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Morry, [1945] 2 All E.R. 632, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Smythe, [1971] S.C.R. 680, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Morgentaler, [1971] 1 S.C.R. 616, refd to. [para. 31].

Gouriet v. Union of Post Office Workers and Others, [1977] 3 All E.R. 70, refd to. [para. 31].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Jowitt's Dictionary of English Law (2nd Ed.), p. 947 [para. 17].

Wharton's Law Lexicon (13th Ed.), p. 442 [para. 17].

Holdsworth, A History of English Law, vol. 9, p. 223 [para. 31].

Counsel:

R.H.G. Flett, for Play-All Ltd. et al.;

K.G. Houston, Q.C., and R.R. Edge, for Balderstone;

W.W. Morton, Q.C., and E.P. Schacter, for the Attorney General of Manitoba;

D.G. Frayer, Q.C., for the Attorney General of Canada.

This appeal was heard on March 9, 1983, before Monnin, C.J.M., Huband and O'Sullivan, JJ.A., of the Manitoba Court of Appeal and on September 12, 1983, the following opinions were filed:

Monnin, C.J.M. - See paragraphs 1 to 32;

O'Sullivan, J.A. - See paragraphs 33 to 39.

Huband, J.A. concurred with O'Sullivan, J.A.