R. v. Thiessen,

JurisdictionManitoba
JudgeScott, C.J.M., Philp and Freedman, JJ.A.
Neutral Citation2004 MBCA 151
CourtCourt of Appeal (Manitoba)
Citation(2004), 190 Man.R.(2d) 75 (CA),2004 MBCA 151,[2005] 8 WWR 114,189 CCC (3d) 257,26 CR (6th) 192,[2004] MJ No 362 (QL),124 CRR (2d) 251,190 Man R (2d) 75,(2004), 190 ManR(2d) 75 (CA),[2004] M.J. No 362 (QL),190 ManR(2d) 75,190 Man.R.(2d) 75
Date26 April 2004

R. v. Barkman (T.K.) (2004), 190 Man.R.(2d) 75 (CA);

    335 W.A.C. 75

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. OC.016

Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) v. Thomas Kevin Barkman (accused/appellant)

(AR 03-30-05727)

Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) v. Keith Roderick Thiessen (accused/appellant)

(AR 03-30-05728)

(2004 MBCA 151)

Indexed As: R. v. Barkman (T.K.)

Manitoba Court of Appeal

Scott, C.J.M., Philp and Freedman, JJ.A.

October 8, 2004.

Summary:

Two accused were charged with production of marihuana and possession of marihuana for the purpose of trafficking. The accused applied for a stay of proceedings on the ground that their s. 11(b) Charter rights to be tried within a reasonable time were breached. The trial judge held that the accused's s. 11(b) rights were not violated. The trial judge convicted the accused and imposed, inter alia, a conditional sentence of two years less a day. The accused appealed the finding that their s. 11(b) rights were not violated. They also appealed their convictions and their sentence.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals.

Civil Rights - Topic 3261

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Speedy trial - Accused's right to - General - It was not uncommon for trials before the Provincial Court in Manitoba to be scheduled a year to a year and a half in the future, or even longer for accused not in custody - The Manitoba Court of Appeal stated that "This period of delay, which has now become systemic in nature, is most troubling. If not corrected, it will undoubtedly result in more 'Askov' motions with results that may be quite different than the present appeal. It behooves the court, counsel and court officials alike to promptly take measures to alleviate this hazard before it is too late. Above all, it is incumbent on the courts to recognize our responsibility to balance more appropriately the convenience of counsel and others involved in the court process, with the constitutional imperative that a trial must be completed within a reasonable period of time." - See paragraph 52.

Civil Rights - Topic 3264

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Speedy trial - Accused's right to - Denial of right - Two accused sought a stay of proceedings, arguing that their s. 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time was breached - The delay between the charges and the commencement of trial was 42 months - The Manitoba Court of Appeal held that the accused's s. 11(b) Charter rights were not violated - 20 to 22 months delay was attributable to the Crown, including 11 to 12 months of systemic delay - Approximately 30 months had elapsed between February 2, 2000, when a date was first set for the preliminary hearing, until July 11, 2002, when the order for committal was made - Approximately 20 to 21 months of this delay was attributable to the accused - The Crown had sought earlier dates for the preliminary hearing, but the accused's counsel opposed the dates because of other trial commitments - Although an accused's desire for counsel of their choice was understandable and supported by authority, the right to counsel was only one factor to be considered in balancing the rights and interests under s. 11(b) and could not be used to trump competing rights and interests - The accused failed to complain about the delay - Finally, there was no evidence of prejudice to the accused.

Civil Rights - Topic 3265

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Speedy trial - Accused's right to - What constitutes "within a reasonable time" - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3264 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Morin, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 771; 134 N.R. 321; 53 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Lepage (J.P.), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 654; 178 N.R. 81; 79 O.A.C. 191, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Noble (S.J.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 874; 210 N.R. 321; 89 B.C.A.C. 1; 145 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Damianakos (W.) (1997), 126 Man.R.(2d) 81; 167 W.A.C. 81 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Shropshire (M.T.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 227; 188 N.R. 284; 65 B.C.A.C. 37; 106 W.A.C. 37, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. C.A.M., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 500; 194 N.R. 321; 73 B.C.A.C. 81; 120 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Askov, Hussey, Melo and Gugliotta, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1199; 113 N.R. 241; 42 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Loewen (J.K.) (1998), 131 Man.R.(2d) 217; 187 W.A.C. 217 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Smith (M.H.), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1120; 102 N.R. 205; 63 Man.R.(2d) 81, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Potvin (R.) (1992), 56 O.A.C. 139; 74 C.C.C.(3d) 111 (C.A.), affd. [1993] 2 S.C.R. 880; 155 N.R. 241; 66 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Herrington (W.) (2003), 179 O.A.C. 268; 68 O.R.(3d) 532 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Rogalsky (E.J.) et al. (1994), 125 Sask.R. 271; 81 W.A.C. 271; 95 C.C.C.(3d) 41 (C.A.), affd. [1995] 4 S.C.R. 48; 189 N.R. 82; 137 Sask.R. 230; 107 W.A.C. 230, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Bennett (1991), 46 O.A.C. 99; 64 C.C.C.(3d) 449 (C.A.), affd. [1992] 2 S.C.R. 168; 138 N.R. 388; 54 O.A.C. 350, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. O'Connor (H.P.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 411; 191 N.R. 1; 68 B.C.A.C. 1; 112 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Jack (J.) (2002), 212 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 224; 637 A.P.R. 224; 2002 NFCA 31, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Satkunananthan (S.) (2001), 143 O.A.C. 1; 152 C.C.C.(3d) 321 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Reid (B.W.) (1999), 171 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 143; 525 A.P.R. 143 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Allen (H.D.) (1996), 92 O.A.C. 345; 110 C.C.C.(3d) 331 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Chatwell (D.R.) (1998), 106 O.A.C. 226; 122 C.C.C.(3d) 162 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Kwok (Y.L.D.) (2002), 168 B.C.A.C. 85; 275 W.A.C. 85; 164 C.C.C.(3d) 182; 2002 BCCA 177, refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Sharma, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 814; 134 N.R. 368; 53 O.A.C. 288, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Williamson (K.) (2000), 132 O.A.C. 92; 144 C.C.C.(3d) 540 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Fagan (R.J.) (1998), 115 B.C.A.C. 106; 189 W.A.C. 106 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Stewart (B.C.) (2000), 139 B.C.A.C. 213; 227 W.A.C. 213; 2000 BCCA 399, refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. R.C. (2001), 203 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 26; 610 A.P.R. 26; 158 C.C.C.(3d) 119; 2001 NFCA 37, refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Porter (N.M.) (2002), 170 B.C.A.C. 77; 279 W.A.C. 77; 2002 BCCA 355, refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Dutra (A.) (2000), 137 B.C.A.C. 104; 223 W.A.C. 104; 155 C.C.C.(3d) 272; 2000 BCCA 174, refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Bazinet (M.A.) (2002), 173 B.C.A.C. 71; 283 W.A.C. 71; 168 C.C.C.(3d) 344; 2002 BCCA 536, refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Bijelic (R.) (2001), 150 O.A.C. 292 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. Fleet (E.J.) (2001), 198 N.S.R.(2d) 228; 621 A.P.R. 228; 163 C.C.C.(3d) 177; 2001 NSCA 158, refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. Miller (T.W.) (2000), 149 B.C.A.C. 161; 244 W.A.C. 161; 2000 BCCA 680, refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. Philip (K.) (1993), 60 O.A.C. 391; 80 C.C.C.(3d) 167 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. MacPherson (J.M.) (1999), 127 B.C.A.C. 49; 207 W.A.C. 49; 1999 BCCA 403, refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. Byron (M.C.) (2001), 156 Man.R.(2d) 154; 246 W.A.C. 154; 2001 MBCA 81, refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Christie (W.H.M.) (2001), 197 N.S.R.(2d) 398; 616 A.P.R. 398; 160 C.C.C.(3d) 192; 2001 NSCA 147, refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Eizenga (M.A.), [2002] O.A.C. Uned. 258 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Fridleifson (D.A.) (1999), 127 B.C.A.C. 252; 207 W.A.C. 252; 1999 BCCA 351, refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Maracle, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 86, refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. W.B. (2000), 133 O.A.C. 3; 145 C.C.C.(3d) 498 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Sander (S.) (1995), 58 B.C.A.C. 115; 96 W.A.C. 115; 98 C.C.C.(3d) 564 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (Looseleaf Ed.), vol. 2, p. 49-8, s. 49.7 [para. 34].

Stuart, Don, Annotation to R. v. Collins (M.E.) (1995), 40 C.R.(4th) 277, generally [para. 40].

Counsel:

J.C. Prober, for the appellants;

E.E. Magas and T.L. Gilliam, for the respondent.

These appeals were heard on April 26, 2004, by Scott, C.J.M., Philp and Freedman, JJ.A., of the Manitoba Court of Appeal. Scott, C.J.M., delivered the following judgment for the court on October 8, 2004.

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 practice notes
  • R. v. Seeglitz (J.W.), (2008) 339 N.B.R.(2d) 163 (PC)
    • Canada
    • New Brunswick Provincial Court of New Brunswick (Canada)
    • 2 Octubre 2008
    ...refd to. [para. 21]. R. v. Firth (G.) (1992), 126 N.B.R.(2d) 47; 317 A.P.R. 47 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22]. R. v. Barkman (T.K.) (2004), 190 Man.R.(2d) 75; 335 W.A.C. 75; 2004 MBCA 151, consd. [para. R. v. Augustine (R.C.) (1992), 123 N.B.R.(2d) 22; 310 A.P.R. 22; 70 C.C.C.(3d) 318 (C.A.), ......
  • R. v. S.T.N., (2006) 204 Man.R.(2d) 212 (QB)
    • Canada
    • Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Canada)
    • 23 Junio 2006
    ...refd to. [para. 14]. R. v. Allen (H.D.) (1996), 92 O.A.C. 345; 110 C.C.C.(3d) 331 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25]. R. v. Barkman (T.K.) (2004), 190 Man.R.(2d) 75; 335 W.A.C. 75; 2004 MBCA 151, refd to. [para. R. v. W.B. (2000), 133 O.A.C. 3; 145 C.C.C.(3d) 498 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34]. R. v.......
  • R. v. Cameron (K.M.), (2005) 197 Man.R.(2d) 135 (PC)
    • Canada
    • Manitoba Provincial Court of Manitoba (Canada)
    • 12 Octubre 2005
    ...- Denial of rights - Remedies - Stay of proceedings - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3265 ]. Cases Noticed: R. v. Barkman (T.K.) (2004), 190 Man.R.(2d) 75; 335 W.A.C. 75; 2004 MBCA 151, refd to. [para. R. v. Askov, Hussey, Melo and Gugliotta, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1199; 113 N.R. 241; 42 O.A.C. 81, ref......
  • Bizier et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., 2005 FC 8
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Federal Court (Canada)
    • 15 Diciembre 2004
    ...Jean-Marc Comeau, Daniel Morin and Gaétan Loiseau (applicants) v. Attorney General of Canada and Marcel Hachez (respondents) (T-1017-03; 2005 CF 8; 2005 FC Indexed As: Bizier et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. Federal Court Noël, J. January 6, 2005. Summary: The Department of Nation......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
18 cases
  • R. v. Seeglitz (J.W.), (2008) 339 N.B.R.(2d) 163 (PC)
    • Canada
    • New Brunswick Provincial Court of New Brunswick (Canada)
    • 2 Octubre 2008
    ...refd to. [para. 21]. R. v. Firth (G.) (1992), 126 N.B.R.(2d) 47; 317 A.P.R. 47 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22]. R. v. Barkman (T.K.) (2004), 190 Man.R.(2d) 75; 335 W.A.C. 75; 2004 MBCA 151, consd. [para. R. v. Augustine (R.C.) (1992), 123 N.B.R.(2d) 22; 310 A.P.R. 22; 70 C.C.C.(3d) 318 (C.A.), ......
  • R. v. S.T.N., (2006) 204 Man.R.(2d) 212 (QB)
    • Canada
    • Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Canada)
    • 23 Junio 2006
    ...refd to. [para. 14]. R. v. Allen (H.D.) (1996), 92 O.A.C. 345; 110 C.C.C.(3d) 331 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25]. R. v. Barkman (T.K.) (2004), 190 Man.R.(2d) 75; 335 W.A.C. 75; 2004 MBCA 151, refd to. [para. R. v. W.B. (2000), 133 O.A.C. 3; 145 C.C.C.(3d) 498 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34]. R. v.......
  • R. v. Cameron (K.M.), (2005) 197 Man.R.(2d) 135 (PC)
    • Canada
    • Manitoba Provincial Court of Manitoba (Canada)
    • 12 Octubre 2005
    ...- Denial of rights - Remedies - Stay of proceedings - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3265 ]. Cases Noticed: R. v. Barkman (T.K.) (2004), 190 Man.R.(2d) 75; 335 W.A.C. 75; 2004 MBCA 151, refd to. [para. R. v. Askov, Hussey, Melo and Gugliotta, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1199; 113 N.R. 241; 42 O.A.C. 81, ref......
  • Bizier et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., 2005 FC 8
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Federal Court (Canada)
    • 15 Diciembre 2004
    ...Jean-Marc Comeau, Daniel Morin and Gaétan Loiseau (applicants) v. Attorney General of Canada and Marcel Hachez (respondents) (T-1017-03; 2005 CF 8; 2005 FC Indexed As: Bizier et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. Federal Court Noël, J. January 6, 2005. Summary: The Department of Nation......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT