Kostuch v. Alberta (Attorney General), (1995) 174 A.R. 109 (CA)

• Judge: Hetherington, McFadyen and Russell, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: September 26, 1995
• Citations: (1995), 174 A.R. 109 (CA)

Kostuch v. Alta. (A.G.) (1995), 174 A.R. 109 (CA);

    102 W.A.C. 109

MLB headnote and full text

In The Matter Of Regina ex rel. Kostuch v. The Queen in Right of Alberta et al. being information number 21075833P1 ("the information") sworn by Martha Kostuch in the Provincial Court of Alberta in the Judicial District of Calgary ("the Court") on the 28th day of July 1992, alleging inter alia that The Queen in Right of Alberta, UMA Engineering Ltd., W.A. Stephenson Construction (Western) Limited, and SCI Engineering & Constructors Inc. ("the Accused") did contravene section 35(1) and 40(1)(b) of the Fisheries Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-14, and upon which summonses have been issued to the Accused by the Court to appear in Courtroom number GR-1 in the Court of Queen's Bench Courthouse in the City of Calgary on Monday, March 22, 1993 to answer to the information.

Martha Kostuch (appellant) v. The Attorney General of Alberta (respondent)

(Appeal No. 14672)

Indexed As: Kostuch v. Alberta (Attorney General)

Alberta Court of Appeal

Hetherington, McFadyen and Russell, JJ.A.

September 26, 1995.

Summary:

Kostuch swore a private information under the federal Fisheries Act against the Prov­ince of Alberta et al., alleging a disruption or destruction of fish habitat at the Old Man.R.iver Dam site. The Attorney General of Alberta intervened and stayed the prosecu­tion. Kostuch applied to set aside the inter­vention and stay and to prohibit the Attorney General from intervening or direct­ing a stay, arguing that her rights under ss. 2(a), 2(b) and 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms were infringed.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a judgment reported 143 A.R. 161, dismissed the application. Kostuch appealed.

The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 8546

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Life, liberty and security of the person - [See Crown - Topic 613 ].

Crown - Topic 612

Attorney General - Private prosecutions - Power to intervene - [See Crown - Topic 613 ].

Crown - Topic 613

Attorney General - Private prosecutions - Power to stay - Kostuch swore a private information under the federal Fisheries Act against the Province, alleging disruption or destruction of fish habitat at the Old Man.R.iver Dam site - The Attorney General of Alberta intervened and stayed the prosecu­tion - Kostuch applied to set aside the intervention and stay - The trial judge dismissed the application, holding that absent any flagrant impropriety by the Attorney General, staying the prosecution did not violate Kostuch's rights under s. 7 of the Charter - The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed Kostuch's appeal - Section 7 did not include an unrestricted right of a private citizen to continue a private prosecution in the face of interven­tion by the Attorney General - The power to review prosecutorial discretion, assum­ing it existed, was limited to cases of flagrant impropriety in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, which required conduct bordering on corruption, violation of the law or bias respecting an individual or an offence - Flagrant impropriety was not established.

Cases Noticed:

Reference Re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266; 48 C.R.(3d) 289; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 289; [1986] 1 W.W.R. 481, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Beare; R. v. Higgins, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 387; 88 N.R. 205; 71 Sask.R. 1; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 57; [1989] 1 W.W.R. 97; 66 C.R.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 25].

Reference Re Sections 193 and 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1123; 109 N.R. 81; 68 Man.R.(2d) 1; 56 C.C.C.(3d) 65; 77 C.R.(3d) 1; [1990] 4 W.W.R. 481, refd to. [para. 26].

Prostitution Reference - see Reference Re Sections 193 and 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code.

R. v. Power (E.), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 601; 165 N.R. 241; 117 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 269; 365 A.P.R. 269; 89 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 29].

Osiowy v. Linn, P.C.J. (1989), 77 Sask.R. 1; 50 C.C.C.(3d) 189 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

Balderstone v. R. and Manitoba (Attorney General); Play-All Ltd., Nellis and Bricker v. Penner, Manitoba (Attorney General) and R. (1983), 23 Man.R.(2d) 125; 8 C.C.C.(3d) 532 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Moore et al. (1986), 39 Man.R.(2d) 315; 26 C.C.C.(3d) 474 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

Campbell v. Ontario (Attorney General) (1987), 31 C.C.C.(3d) 289 (Ont. H.C.J.), 35 C.C.C.(3d) 480; 60 O.R.(2d) 617 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

Kostuch v. Alberta et al. (1991), 121 A.R. 219; 81 Alta. L.R.(2d) 214; 66 C.C.C.(3d) 201, refd to. [para. 34].

Chartrand c. Québec (Procureur général) et Machabée (1987), 14 Q.A.C. 81; 40 C.C.C.(3d) 270; 59 C.R.(3d) 388 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 7 [para. 24].

Fisheries Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-14, sect. 35 [para. 19].

Counsel:

I. Cartwright, J. Klimek and B. Tingle, for the appellant;

T. Beattie, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on May 8, 1995, before Hetherington, McFadyen and Russell, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal.

On September 26, 1995, the following memorandum of judgment was delivered by the Court.