Kostuch v. Alberta et al., (1991) 121 A.R. 219 (QB)

• Judge: Miller, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: July 04, 1991
• Citations: (1991), 121 A.R. 219 (QB)

Kostuch v. Alta. (1991), 121 A.R. 219 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

W.A. Stephenson Construction (Western) Limited and SCI Engineering and Constructors Inc. (applicants) v. His Honour Judge A.A. Fradsham, of the Provincial Court of Alberta

(No. 9103-0343-C00101)

Indexed As: Kostuch v. Alberta et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Calgary

Miller, J.

July 4, 1991.

Summary:

A private citizen laid successive informa­tions charging the Province of Alberta and others with a summary convic­tion offence under s. 35(1) of the Fisheries Act (destruc­tion of fish habitat). The Attor­ney General of Alberta entered a stay of proceedings. The citizen laid a seventh information charging the Province and two construction com­panies. The Province and the construction companies applied to stay the proceedings, claiming an abuse of pro­cess.

The Alberta Provincial Court, in a decision reported 112 A.R. 283, dismissed the appli­cation. The construction companies applied for certiorari to set aside the decision.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dis­missed the application.

Courts - Topic 2013

Jurisdiction - Criminal cases - Stay of proceedings - A citizen laid two informations charging the Province of Alberta and others with violating the Fish­eries Act - The Attorney General stayed both proceedings - The citizen laid a third information - The Province et al. unsuc­cessfully applied for a stay - The Province et al. submitted that the Alberta Provincial Court exceeded jurisdiction by considering the previous stays, the decision of the Federal Attorney General not to prosecute and the communiqué on the matter - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the court did not consider irrelevant mat­ters and the scope of the inquiry was within the court's jurisdiction - See para­graphs 30 to 47.

Criminal Law - Topic 251

Abuse of process - General principles - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dis­cussed the applicable test and the burden of proof on an application for a stay of proceedings on the ground of abuse of process - See paragraphs 14 to 21.

Criminal Law - Topic 251

Abuse of process - General principles - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dis­cussed the use of abuse of process to control a multi­plicity of proceedings - The court reiter­ated circumstances where multiple pro­ceedings might lead to an abuse of process - See paragraph 26.

Criminal Law - Topic 253

Abuse of process - Oppressive or other conduct constituting - A citizen laid sev­eral informations charging the Province of Alberta and others with violating the Fish­eries Act - Two resulted in the issue of process and both were stayed by the Attorney General of Alberta - The citizen laid a third information - The Province et al. applied to stay the proceedings - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench affirmed that there was no abuse of process, where the applicants failed to prove that compel­ling them to proceed would be an affront to the community's sense of fair play or to prove oppressive or vexatious proceedings - See paragraphs 22 to 29.

Cases Noticed:

Kostuch v. Alberta et al. (1991), 112 A.R. 283; 78 Alta. L.R.(2d) 131, refd to. [para. 1].

Kostuch v. Kowalski et al. (1990), 107 A.R. 60 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Weiss (1915), 7 W.W.R. 1160, not appld. [para. 4].

Campbell v. Ontario (Attorney General) (1987), 31 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 38 D.L.R. (4th) 64, affd. 35 C.C.C.(3d) 480 (Ont. C.A.), leave to appeal refused 83 N.R. 24; 43 D.L.R.(4th) vii; 35 C.C.C.(3d) 480, not appld. [para. 4].

R. v. Edwards (1919), 31 C.C.C. 33 (Alta. S.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 11].

Sproule, Re (1886), 12 S.C.R. 140, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Osborn, [1971] S.C.R. 184; 1 C.C.C.(2d) 482; 15 D.L.R.(3d) 85, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Rourke, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 1021; 35 C.C.C.(2d) 129; 76 D.L.R.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Amato, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 418; 42 N.R. 487; 69 C.C.C.(2d) 31; 140 D.L.R.(3d) 405, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Jewitt, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 128; 61 N.R. 159; [1985] 6 W.W.R. 127; 20 D.L.R.(4th) 651; 21 C.C.C.(3d) 7, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Young (1984), 13 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 46 O.R.(2d) 520; 40 C.R.(3d) 289 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Keyowski, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 657; 83 N.R. 296; 65 Sask.R. 122; 40 C.C.C.(3d) 481; [1988] 4 W.W.R. 97; 62 C.R.(3d) 349; 32 C.R.R. 269, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Miles of Music Ltd. and Roch (1989), 31 O.A.C. 380; 48 C.C.C.(3d) 96, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Jans (1990), 108 A.R. 324; 59 C.C.C.(3d) 398 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. B. (1986), 29 C.C.C.(3d) 365 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

Operation Dismantle Inc. et al. v. Canada et al., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 441; 59 N.R. 1; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 481; 13 C.P.R. 287, refd to. [para. 36].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Ewaschuk, Criminal Pleadings and Practice in Canada (2nd Ed. 1987), pp. 12-15, para. 12:6075 [para. 13].

Wade, William, Administrative Law (6th Ed. 1988), p. 943 [para 45].

Counsel:

Robert H. Davison, for the applicants;

Dennis R. Thomas, Q.C., for the Queen;

Ian Cartwright, for Martha Kostuch.

This application was heard before Miller, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial