R. v. Budic, (1977) 5 A.R. 37 (CA)

• Judge: Clement, Moir and Morrow, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: June 22, 1977
• Citations: (1977), 5 A.R. 37 (CA)

R. v. Budic (1977), 5 A.R. 37 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Budic

Indexed As: R. v. Budic

Alberta Supreme Court

Appellate Division

Clement, Moir and Morrow, JJ.A.

June 22, 1977.

Summary:

This case arose out of a charge of noncapital murder. At the accused's trial before a judge sitting alone the evidence established that the accused was suffering from a specific delusion respecting the murder victim. The trial judge stopped the trial and ruled that the accused was unfit to stand trial because of the delusion. On appeal to the Alberta Court of Appeal the appeal was allowed. The Alberta Court of Appeal held that the delusion from which the accused was suffering was not one that rendered him unfit to stand trial - see 3 A.R. 141.

The Alberta Court of Appeal ordered a new trial.

Subsequently, the Crown applied for directions respecting whether the Crown should prefer a new indictment based on changes in the substantive law respecting murder enacted after the original indictment. The Alberta Court of Appeal interpreted s. 27(2) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act (No. 2) 1976 and held that the new substantive law respecting murder applied retroactively so that the Crown was required to prefer a new indictment based on the amended substantive law.

Statutes - Topic 6705

Operation of statutes - Retrospective enactments - Presumption against retrospectivity rebutted - The accused was charged with murder - The substantive law respecting murder was changed after the accused was indicted - On appeal the Alberta Court of Appeal ordered a new trial - Whether the Crown was required to prefer a new indictment based on the new substantive law - The Alberta Court of Appeal interpreted s. 27(2) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act (No. 2) 1976 and held that the new substantive law respecting murder applied retroactively so that the Crown was required to prefer a new indictment based on the amended substantive law.

Cases Noticed:

Bingeman v. McLaughlin (Bingeman), 16 N.R. 55, folld. [para. 5].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 214 [para. 2]; sect. 543(5), sect. sect. 613(6), sect. 613(8) [para. 1].

Criminal Law Amendment Act (No. 2), S.C. 1974-75-76, c. 105, sect. 27(2) [para. 5].

Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. I-23, sect. 11, sect. 35, sect. 36 [para. 12].

Counsel:

E.H. Molstad, for appellant;

Jack Watson, for the Crown.

This appeal was heard by CLEMENT, MOIR and MORROW, JJ.A. The judgment of the Alberta Court of Appeal was delivered at Edmonton, Alta., on June 22, 1977 and the following opinions were filed:

CLEMENT, J.A. - see paragraphs 1 to 5;

MORROW, J.A. - see paragraphs 6 to 19.

MOIR, J.A., concurred with CLEMENT, J.A.