Mentiplay v. Redekopp and Mennonite Trust Co., (1986) 47 Sask.R. 243 (QB)

• Judge: Grotsky, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: March 17, 1986
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (1986), 47 Sask.R. 243 (QB)

Mentiplay v. Redekopp (1986), 47 Sask.R. 243 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Mentiplay v. Redekopp and Mennonite Trust Company

(Nos. 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29 A.D. 1985)

Indexed As: Mentiplay v. Redekopp and Mennonite Trust Co.

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

Grotsky, J.

March 17, 1986.

Summary:

The accused were charged in several informations with unlawfully performing work for a fee in matters pertaining to the law, contrary to s. 5(2) of the Legal Profession Act. Prior to plea, the accused moved to quash the informations, on the ground, inter alia, that the informations did not comply with s. 510 of the Criminal Code of Canada.

The Saskatchewan Provincial Court, in a decision reported in 39 Sask.R. 178, agreed with the accused and quashed the informations for non-compliance with s. 510. Mentiplay (the informant) appealed respecting each information. The appeals were consolidated for hearing.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench allowed the appeals and held that the informations were valid. The court ordered the informations be returned to the Provincial Court for trial.

Criminal Law - Topic 7469

Summary conviction proceedings - Appeals - Conditions precedent - Section 752.1(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada provided that where the Crown in summary conviction proceedings appealed under s. 748, the prosecutor shall appear before a justice, who shall order that the prosecutor give an undertaking or enter into a recognizance - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that compliance with s. 752.1(1) was not a condition precedent to the right of appeal, but was a condition precedent to the right to have the appeal heard and determined - See paragraphs 16 to 24.

Trials - Topic 1085

Summary convictions - Informations - Description of charge or offence - Several informations charged the accused with "unlawfully performing work for a fee in matters pertaining to the law, to wit, perform work on behalf of (named vendors and one purchaser)" - There was no specific description of the legal work done, thus the legal act or omission of the accused was not detailed - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court quashed the informations, because there were insufficient details of the circumstances of the alleged offence as required by s. 510 of the Criminal Code - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that the informations were sufficient - See paragraphs 32 to 42.

Trials - Topic 1087

Summary convictions - Informations - Requirement that offence be contrary to law - The accused were charged with "unlawfully performing work for a fee in matters pertaining to the law ...", contrary to s. 5(2) of the Legal Profession Act - The accused alleged a failure to disclose an offence known to law, because the informations did not aver that the accused were not lawyers - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench affirmed that the informant was not required to negative the exception to an offence under s. 5 and affirmed that the informations were valid - See paragraphs 32 to 42.

Words and Phrases

Prosecutor - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that the word "prosecutor" as found in s. 752.1(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, meant the informant, not his counsel, notwithstanding the definition of "prosecutor" in s. 720 of the Code - See paragraph 28.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Allan (1973), 9 C.C.C.(2d) 119 (B.C.S.C.), consd. [para. 19].

R. v. Joseph (1900), 6 C.C.C. 144 (Que. K.B.), consd. [para. 19].

Schick v. Corballis (1920), 35 C.C.C. 135 (Sask. D.C.), consd. [para. 19].

R. v. Westhaver, [1963] 1 C.C.C. 53 (N.S.C.A.), consd. [para. 19].

R. v. Young, [1942] 3 W.W.R. 403 (Sask. C.A.), consd. [para. 19].

Broadfoot and The Queen, Re (1977), 35 C.C.C.(2d) 493 (Ont. C.A.), appld. [para. 23].

R. v. Cote, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 8; 13 N.R. 271, refd to. [para. 32].

Brodie v. R. (1936), 65 C.C.C. 289 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Sault St. Marie, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1299; 21 N.R. 295, refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. McKenzie, [1972] S.C.R. 409, refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Bingo Enterprises Ltd. (1985), 29 Man.R.(2d) 78; 41 C.R.(3d) 291 (Man. C.A.), consd. [para. 37].

R. v. Fischer (1985), 40 Sask.R. 239; 45 C.R.(3d) 191 (Sask. C.A.), consd. [para. 38].

R. v. Prendiville (1973), 12 C.C.C.(2d) 87 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Wis Developments Corporation Ltd. et al. (1984), 53 N.R. 134; 12 C.C.C.(3d) 129 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 41].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 510 [para. 35]; sect. 752.1(1) [paras. 16-17, 19, 22-30].

Counsel:

D.A. Lavoie, for the appellant;

D.S. Plaxton, for the respondents.

These appeals were heard before Grotsky, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Saskatoon, whose decision was delivered on March 17, 1986.