R. v. Brown (P.R.D.), 2012 NSPC 64

• Judge: Scovil, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: Thursday April 05, 2012
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: 2012 NSPC 64;(2012), 319 N.S.R.(2d) 128 (PC)

R. v. Brown (P.R.D.) (2012), 319 N.S.R.(2d) 128 (PC);

    1010 A.P.R. 128

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2012] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. JL.068

Her Majesty The Queen v. Patrick Ronald David Brown

(2354894; 2012 NSPC 64)

Indexed As: R. v. Brown (P.R.D.)

Nova Scotia Provincial Court

Scovil, P.C.J.

July 9, 2012.

Summary:

The accused was charged with failing without lawful excuse to report to the R.C.M.P. detachment in person as required by the release conditions of his recognizance. The non-reporting resulted from pure forgetfulness.

The Nova Scotia Provincial Court found the accused guilty for failing to take reasonable steps to ensure that he met his obligation to report.

Criminal Law - Topic 39

General principles - Mens rea or intention - Lack of knowledge or belief (incl. forgetfulness) - [See Criminal Law - Topic 6775].

Criminal Law - Topic 6775

Recognizances and undertakings - Recognizance of bail - Breach - The accused was released on a recognizance which required him to personally report to the R.C.M.P. detachment every Friday between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. - One Friday, the accused did not appear or call - He had worked a night shift until 7:00 a.m., went to sleep and did not wake up until 6:00 p.m. - It was accepted that the non-reporting resulted from pure forgetfulness - At issue was whether the Crown established the requisite mens rea for failing without lawful excuse to report - The Nova Scotia Provincial Court accepted the line of cases which held that simply forgetting a responsibility to report was not a defence unless the accused showed an honest and reasonable effort to recall the duty - The court stated that "the accused was quite aware of his responsibility to report in to the police when required. He had obviously managed to do so at other points in time while he was under this obligation. While he may have slept through when he was to have reported in, he took no efforts to prevent this. People use alarm clocks daily to get up to make it to work on time. They have friends and family remind them of appointments and tasks. The market place is awash with cell phones and other electronic devices that have applications devoted to reminding us of daily obligations. None of that was attempted to be utilized by the accused. Any reasonable person would have had the foresight to take steps to insure that such a responsibility that the accused had would have been met".

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Bender (1976), 30 C.C.C.(2d) 496 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Stuart (1981), 58 C.C.C.(2d) 203 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Neal (1982), 67 C.C.C.(2d) 92 (Ont. Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Daoud (1988), 65 Sask.R. 308 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Hutchinson (K.) (1994), 160 A.R. 58 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Legere (K.R.) (1995), 77 O.A.C. 265; 95 C.C.C.(3d) 555 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Blazevic (M.) (1997), 31 O.T.C. 10 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Hurlbert (G.D.) (2003), 340 A.R. 192 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Eby (M.N.) (2007), 415 A.R. 273 (Prov. Ct.), disagreed with [para. 7].

R. v. Manuel (R.M.) (2000), 182 N.S.R.(2d) 193; 563 A.P.R. 193 (S.C.), dist. [para. 7].

R. v. Preshaw et al. (1976), 31 C.C.C.(2d) 456 (Ont. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Ludlow (R.J.) (1999), 125 B.C.A.C. 194; 204 W.A.C. 194; 136 C.C.C.(3d) 460 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Osmond (D.G.) (2006), 248 N.S.R.(2d) 221; 789 A.P.R. 221 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Potts (J.) (2012), 537 A.R. 159 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Vaillancourt, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 636; 81 N.R. 115; 10 Q.A.C. 161; 68 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 281; 209 A.P.R. 281, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Sault Ste. Marie (City), [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1299; 21 N.R. 295, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Hundal (S.), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 867; 149 N.R. 189; 22 B.C.A.C. 241; 38 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Creighton, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 3; 157 N.R. 1; 65 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Finlay, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 103; 156 N.R. 374; 113 Sask.R. 241; 52 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 16].

Counsel:

Bruce Baxter, for the Crown;

Jim O'Neil, for the accused.

This matter was heard on April 5, 2012, at Amherst, N.S., before Scovil, P.C.J., of the Nova Scotia Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on July 9, 2012.