R. v. Adams (D.C.), 2001 ABQB 366

• Judge: Slatter, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: April 19, 2001
• Citations: 2001 ABQB 366;(2001), 290 A.R. 316 (QB)

R. v. Adams (D.C.) (2001), 290 A.R. 316 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] A.R. TBEd. MY.060

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. David Craig Adams (accused/appellant)

(Action No. 016004897S1; 2001 ABQB 366)

Indexed As: R. v. Adams (D.C.)

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Slatter, J.

May 2, 2001.

Summary:

The accused was charged with speeding under the Highway Traffic Act. The Crown refused the accused's request for further disclosure of technical information about the laser gun used to record the accused's speed. The accused gave notice under the Constitutional Notice Regulation, claiming that further and better disclosure was required to enable him to make full answer and defence. As the Traffic Commissioner had no jurisdiction to provide Charter remedies, the matter was transferred to a Provincial Court Judge. The Provincial Court Judge dismissed the accused's application (with one small exception) and referred the matter back to the Traffic Commissioner. The accused appealed from the Provincial Court Judge's decision.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench quashed the appeal where the accused had no right to appeal the interlocutory decision.

Criminal Law - Topic 7473.2

Summary conviction proceedings - Appeals - General - Appeal from interlocutory decision - [See Trials - Topic 1182 ].

Trials - Topic 1182

Summary convictions - Appeals - When available - The accused was charged with speeding - The Crown refused the accused's request for further disclosure of technical information about the laser gun used to record the accused's speed - The accused gave notice under the Constitutional Notice Regulation, claiming that further and better disclosure was required to enable him to make full answer and defence - As the Traffic Commissioner had no jurisdiction to provide Charter remedies, the matter was transferred to a Provincial Court Judge - The Provincial Court Judge dismissed the accused's application (with one small exception) and referred the matter back to the Traffic Commissioner - The accused appealed from the Provincial Court Judge's decision - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench quashed the appeal where the accused had no right to appeal the interlocutory decision - "Judgment, order or sentence" in s. 17(1) of the Provincial Offences Procedure Act referred to final orders and the section did not allow for interlocutory appeals.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326; 130 N.R. 277; 120 A.R. 161; 8 W.A.C. 161; [1992] 1 W.W.R. 97; 83 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193; 8 C.R.(4th) 277; 68 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. AGAT Laboratories Ltd., [1998] 6 W.W.R. 255; 203 A.R. 255; 58 Alta. L.R.(3d) 181 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Vail, [1960] S.C.R. 913; 129 C.C.C. 145; 33 W.W.R.(N.S.) 325, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Canadian Pacific Ltd., [1977] 1 W.W.R. 203; 1 A.R. 177; 32 C.C.C.(2d) 14; 1 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Hunt (1978), 25 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 36 A.P.R. 1; 39 C.C.C.(2d) 135 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Goldrick (1974), 25 C.R.N.S. 389; 17 C.C.C.(2d) 74 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Mills, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 863; 67 N.R. 241; 16 O.A.C. 81; 52 C.R.(3d) 1; 26 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 29 D.L.R.(4th) 161, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. AGAT Laboratories Ltd. (1998), 218 A.R. 160; 59 Alta. L.R.(3d) 233; 17 C.R.(5th) 147 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. Oickle (J.F.) (1994), 135 N.S.R.(2d) 237; 386 A.P.R. 237; 93 C.C.C.(3d) 481 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 18].

Statutes Noticed:

Provincial Offences Procedure Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. P-21.5, sect. 17 [para. 12].

Counsel:

Kenneth C. Kolthammer, for the appellant;

T. Couillard, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on April 19, 2001, before Slatter, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following decision on May 2, 2001.