R. v. Beaudry,

• Judge: Berger,Chrumka,Russell,Russell Berger
• Neutral Citation: 2000 ABCA 243
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Date: 15 November 1999
• Citation: (2000), 271 A.R. 219 (CA),2000 ABCA 243,[2002] 5 WWR 724,100 Alta LR (3d) 259,271 AR 219,37 CR (5th) 1,[2000] CarswellAlta 1173,[2000] AJ No 1086 (QL),234 WAC 219,(2000), 271 AR 219 (CA),234 W.A.C. 219,[2000] A.J. No 1086 (QL),271 A.R. 219

R. v. Beaudry (M.J.) (2000), 271 A.R. 219 (CA);

    234 W.A.C. 219

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] A.R. TBEd. SE.046

Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. Mario Joseph Beaudry (respondent)

(9903-0254-A; 2000 ABCA 243)

Indexed As: R. v. Beaudry (M.J.)

Alberta Court of Appeal

Russell Berger, JJ.A., and Chrumka, J.(ad hoc)

September 12, 2000.

Summary:

The accused pleaded guilty to trafficking in cocaine. The trial judge imposed a condi­tional sentence of two years less a day with stringent conditions. The trial judge ordered that the accused serve 90 days' imprisonment intermittently. The Crown appealed the conditional sentence.

The Alberta Court of Appeal affirmed the conditional sentence of two years less a day. However, the court set aside the portion of the sentence that required the accused to serve 90 days intermittently, where the parties conceded that such a blended sen­tence was not available.

Courts - Topic 8

Stare decisis - Authority of judicial deci­sions - General principles - Precedents - Court of Appeal - Weight - Memoran­dums and reserved judgments - The Alberta Court of Appeal, per Berger and Russell, JJ.A., discussed the binding effect of memoranda of judgment and reasons labelled "reserved" - Berger, J.A., opined that "memoranda of judgement and judg­ments labelled 'reasons for judgment re­served' must be accorded equal preceden­tial value" - He stated that "a judgement labelled 'reserved' did not nec­essarily mean that a majority of the mem­bers of the court agreed with the decision" - See paragraphs 35 to 45 - Russell, J.A., disagreed and stated that the "important distinction between memoranda of judg­ments and reasons for judgment (or rea­sons for judg­ment reserved) is that reasons for judgment generally enjoy a higher precedential value before this court and thus, in the event of a conflict between the two, generally rea­sons for judgment gov­ern." - See para­graphs 115 to 118 - Chrumka, J.(ad hoc), did not discuss the matter.

Courts - Topic 83

Stare decisis - Authority of judicial deci­sions - Prior decisions of same court - Court of Appeal - The Alberta Court of Appeal, per Berger and Russell, JJ.A., discussed stare decisis and the Court of Appeal's ability to depart from its own prior decisions - See paragraphs 14 to 34 and 98 to 124.

Criminal Law - Topic 5720.4

Punishments - Sentence - Conditional sentence - When available or appropriate - The accused sold a half gram of cocaine to a police agent - He pleaded guilty to trafficking in cocaine - Isolated incident - No evidence of any organized activity - Addicted to cocaine at the time of the offence - The accused was a paid inform­ant for the RCMP - He was in a common law relationship and had two children - Criminal record included a conviction for possession of narcotics - He committed two property offences while on release to support his addiction - However, he dem­onstrated significant rehabilitation and complete abstinence afterwards - The Alberta Court of Appeal affirmed a condi­tional sentence of two years less a day subject to stringent conditions - The court set aside the portion of the sentence that required the accused to serve 90 days intermittently, where the parties conceded that such a blended sentence was not available.

Criminal Law - Topic 5720.4

Punishments - Sentence - Conditional sentence - When available or appropriate - The Alberta Court of Appeal, per Berger, J.A., discussed the interrelationship between starting point sentencing and conditional sentences - See paragraphs 46 to 83.

Criminal Law - Topic 5720.9

Punishments - Sentence - Conditional sentence - Appeals - The Alberta Court of Appeal stated that the trial judge was entitled to "tremendous deference" by an appellate court in the determination "as to whether or not the circumstances of the case are sufficiently 'pressing' so as to require incarceration. The formal charge is not determinative of that issue. The cir­cumstances underlying the commission of the crime, together with the circumstances of the offender will, considered together in the light of the sentencing objectives in s. 718 of the Criminal Code, guide the impo­sition of the sentence." - See paragraphs 61 and 92.

Criminal Law - Topic 5846.5

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Sentence precedents - Starting point principle - [See second Criminal Law - Topic 5720.4 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5850

Sentence - Trafficking in a narcotic - [See first Criminal Law - Topic 5720.4 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Proulx (J.K.D.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 61; 249 N.R. 201; 142 Man.R.(2d) 161; 212 W.A.C. 161, consd. [paras. 1, 122].

R. v. Gladue (J.T.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 688; 238 N.R. 1; 121 B.C.A.C. 161; 198 W.A.C. 161, consd. [paras. 1, 97].

R. v. Wells (J.W.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 207; 250 N.R. 364; 250 A.R. 273; 213 W.A.C. 273, consd. [para. 1].

Woods Manufacturing Co. v. R., [1951] S.C.R. 504, refd to. [para. 15].

Wolfe v. Canadian National Railway Co., [1934] 3 W.W.R. 497 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Jun (1940), 73 C.C.C. 289 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

Yuen Yick Jun, Ex parte, Re - see R. v. Jun.

R. v. Eakins (1943), 79 C.C.C. 256 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Thompson, [1931] 1 W.W.R. 26 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

General Brake & Clutch Service Ltd. v. Scott (W.A.) & Sons Ltd. (1975), 59 D.L.R.(3d) 741 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

Delta Acceptance Corp. v. Redman (1966), 55 D.L.R.(2d) 481 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

Bell v. Klein (No. 1), [1954] 4 D.L.R. 273; 12 W.W.R.(N.S.) 272 (B.C.C.A.), revd. [1955] S.C.R. 309; [1955] 2 D.L.R. 513, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Haas (1962), 38 C.R. 154; 39 W.W.R. 224; 132 C.C.C. 362; 35 D.L.R.(2d) 172 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

Davidson v. Davidson (1952), 7 W.W.R.(N.S.) 272 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

Bullock v. Hansen (1928), 37 Man.R. 450 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Radford (1973), 13 C.C.C.(2d) 575 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

Jones v. Secretary of State for Social Ser­vices, [1972] A.C. 944 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 22].

Ryley Hotel Co., Re (1910), 15 W.L.R. 229 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Reventlow-Criminil v. Streamstown (Rural Municipality), [1920] 1 W.W.R. 577 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Hartfeil, [1920] 3 W.W.R. 1051 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [paras. 24, 109].

R. v. Selock, [1931] 2 W.W.R. 745 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Dowsett v. Edmunds (1926), 22 Alta. L.R. 292 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 24, 99].

Brook and Sunnybrook Holdings Ltd. v. Calgary (City), [1971] 1 W.W.R. 429 (Alta. C.A.), affd. [1971] 5 W.W.R. 96 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 24].

Barrett et al. v. Krebs et al. (1995), 174 A.R. 59; 102 W.A.C. 59 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 28, 109].

R. v. McInnis (1973), 13 C.C.C.(2d) 471; 23 C.R.N.S. 152 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [paras. 30, 102].

R. v. Govedarov et al. (1974), 16 C.C.C.(2d) 238 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Santeramo (1976), 32 C.C.C.(2d) 35; 36 C.R.N.S. 1 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [paras. 30, 102].

Young v. Bristol Aeroplane Co., [1944] K.B. 718 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 33, 100].

R. v. Bonneteau (R.A.) (1994), 157 A.R. 138; 77 W.A.C. 138; 24 Alta. L.R.(3d) 153 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 35, 115].

R. v. McDonnell (T.E.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 948; 210 N.R. 241; 196 A.R. 321; 141 W.A.C. 321, refd to. [paras. 36, 150].

R. v. Wells (J.W.) (1998), 216 A.R. 61; 175 W.A.C. 61 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Hindes (S.C.) (2000), 261 A.R. 108; 225 W.A.C. 108 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Fash (D.M.) (1999), 244 A.R. 146; 209 W.A.C. 146 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. D.M.F. - see R. v. Fash (D.M.).

Hutterian Brethren Church of Starland v. Starland No. 47 (Municipal District) (1993), 135 A.R. 304; 33 W.A.C. 304; 9 Alta. L.R.(3d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Oliver (D.E.) (1996), 187 A.R. 147; 127 W.A.C. 147 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 42, 98].

Luscar Ltd. and Norcen Energy Resources Ltd. v. Pembina Resources Ltd. (1992), 131 A.R. 79; 25 W.A.C. 79 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 42, 119].

R. v. Brady (J.R.) (1998), 209 A.R. 321; 160 W.A.C. 321; 121 C.C.C.(3d) 504 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 46, 122].

R. v. N.Q.L., [1998] S.C.C.A. No. 166 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 48].

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; 102 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [paras. 58, 150].

R. v. G.W., [1999] 3 S.C.R. 597; 247 N.R. 135; 181 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 139; 550 A.P.R. 139; 178 D.L.R.(4th) 76, refd to. [paras. 59, 150].

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; 105 C.C.C.(3d) 327, refd to. [paras. 59, 150].

R. v. Goin (D.J.) (1999), 232 A.R. 128; 195 W.A.C. 128 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 60].

R. v. D.J.G. - see R. v. Goin (D.J.).

R. v. S.J.W. (1998), 209 A.R. 297; 160 W.A.C. 297 (C.A.), addendum [1998] A.R. Uned. 92 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 60].

R. v. Harrison (N.J.) (1998), 212 A.R. 40; 168 W.A.C. 40; 122 C.C.C.(3d) 572 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 62, 122].

R. v. Maskill (1981), 29 A.R. 107; 58 C.C.C.(2d) 408 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 62, 122].

R. v. Maskell - see R. v. Maskill.

R. v. Chung (S.B.) (1993), 135 A.R. 351; 33 W.A.C. 351 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Getty (1990), 104 A.R. 180 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 62, 122].

R. v. D.W.G. (1999), 244 A.R. 176; 209 W.A.C. 176 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 68].

R. v. Stone (B.T.), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 290; 239 N.R. 201; 123 B.C.A.C. 1; 201 W.A.C. 1; 173 D.L.R.(4th) 66, refd to. [paras. 68, 151].

R. v. Banda (C.D.) (2000) 199 Sask.R. 118; 232 W.A.C. 118 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 70].

R. v. Prokos (1998), 127 C.C.C.(3d) 190 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 75].

R. v. Horvath (B.A.), [1997] 8 W.W.R. 357; 152 Sask.R. 277; 140 W.A.C. 277; 117 C.C.C.(3d) 110; 35 W.C.B.(2d) 349 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 78].

R. v. Laliberte (M.R.) (2000), 189 Sask.R. 190; 216 W.A.C. 190; 143 C.C.C.(3d) 503 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 79].

R. v. Wey (R.M.), [1999] 12 W.W.R. 516; 244 A.R. 189; 209 W.A.C. 189 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 89, 131].

Blacklaws et al. v. 470433 Alberta Ltd. (2000), 261 A.R. 28; 225 W.A.C. 28 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 97].

Blacklaws v. Morrow - see Blacklaws et al. v. 470433 Alberta Ltd.

R. v. Hayden (P.A.) (1997), 200 A.R. 279; 146 W.A.C. 279 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 98].

R. v. Whissell-McLeod Ventures Ltd. et al. (1994), 157 A.R. 261; 77 W.A.C. 261 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 98].

Agriculture Financial Services Corp. v. Redmond (1998), 216 A.R. 321; 175 W.A.C. 321 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 98].

R. v. Stafrace (1972), 10 C.C.C.(2d) 181 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 103].

R. v. Gould, [1968] 2 Q.B. 65 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 105].

Beaver v. R., [1957] S.C.R. 531, refd to. [para. 106].

R. v. Caccamo and Caccamo (1973), 21 C.R.N.S. 83 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 106].

R. v. Robinson, [1972] O.J. No. 455 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 106].

Dickerson v. United States, [2000] S.C.T. No. 170 (U.S.S.C.), refd to. [para. 120].

R. v. Chung (K.P.) et al. (1999), 232 A.R. 193; 195 W.A.C. 193 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 122].

R. v. Ostertag (T.K.) (2000) A.R. 266 A.R. 57; 228 W.A.C. 57 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 138].

R. v. Trinh (C.G.) (2000), A.R. 266 A.R. 180; 228 W.A.C. 180 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 138].

R. v. Salame (B.B.), [1999] A.R. Uned. 375 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 174].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Alberta, Consolidated Practice Directions of the Court of Appeal, para. A.4 [para. 35]; sect. 3 [para. 118]; sect. 3(b) [para. 42]; sect. 4 [para. 117].

Band, Patrice, Stare Decisis: Are Appellate Courts Bound by their Previous Deci­sions? (1998), 20 Adv. Q. 344, pp. 346 [para. 43]; 347 [paras. 43, 100]; 352, 353, 354 [para. 101]; 356 [para. 29]; 360 [para. 43]; 364 [para. 111].

Canada, House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor Gen­eral, Report on Review of Sentencing, Conditional Release and Related aspects of Sentencing, Taking Responsibility (1988), generally [para. 147].

Douglas, William, Stare Decisis (1949), 49 Col. L.R. 735, p. 735 [para. 22].

Flowers, Ross, Stare Decisis in Courts of Co-ordinate Jurisdiction (1984-85), 5 Adv. Q. 464, generally [para. 111].

Gall, L., The Canadian Legal System (4th Ed. 1995), pp. 350 ff. [para. 18].

Green, Ian, et al., Final Appeal - Deci­sion-making in Canadian Courts of Appeal (1998), generally [para. 41].

Kennedy, G.D., Case Comment (1953), 31 Can. Bar Rev. 87, generally [para. 21].

Laskin, Bora, The Supreme Court of Canada: A final Court of and For Cana­dians (1951), 29 Can. Bar Rev. 1038, p. 1072 [para. 22].

Murphy, J. David, and Rueter, Robert, Stare Decisis in Commonwealth Appel­late Courts (1981), pp. 43 [para. 99]; 49 [para. 21]; 98, 99 [para. 22]; 105 [para. 32]; 112 [para. 20].

Salmond on Jurisprudence (11th Ed. 1957), generally [para. 22].

Counsel:

D.R. Valgardson, for the appellant;

M.R. Bloos, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on November 15, 1999, before Russell and Berger, JJ.A., and Chrumka, J.(ad hoc), of the Alberta Court of Appeal. The decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered on September 12, 2000, and the following opinions were filed:

Berger, J.A. - see paragraphs 1 to 89;

Chrumka, J.(ad hoc) - see paragraphs 90 to 95;

Russell, J.A. - see paragraphs 96 to 176.