R. v. Bull (T.F.), (2010) 491 A.R. 335 (PC)

JudgeRosborough, P.C.J.
CourtProvincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
Case DateOctober 15, 2009
Citations(2010), 491 A.R. 335 (PC);2010 ABPC 68

R. v. Bull (T.F.) (2010), 491 A.R. 335 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2010] A.R. TBEd. MR.065

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Taylor Francis Bull (applicant)

(090293499P1; 2010 ABPC 68)

Indexed As: R. v. Bull (T.F.)

Alberta Provincial Court

Rosborough, P.C.J.

February 17, 2010.

Summary:

The accused was charged with offences under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Criminal Code. Trial was scheduled for October 15, 2009. Six days before trial, the accused filed a Charter notice advising that he intended to seek the exclusion of evidence due to alleged violations of his ss. 8 and 9 Charter rights. The Crown sought an adjournment. The accused conceded that reasonable notice had not been given and that 14 days notice in writing was required. He sought an adjournment.

The Alberta Provincial Court granted the adjournment.

Administrative Law - Topic 2002

Natural justice - General principles - Nature and purpose of rules of natural justice - The Alberta Provincial Court discussed the duty to give notice within the context of natural justice - The court held that "[c]ompliance with the principles of natural justice was very much a feature of the Canadian legal system long before proclamation of the Charter. Its place in the context of judicial proceedings can be summarized as follows: (a) the principles of natural justice required that courts observe the principle: audi alterem partem (b) audi alterem partem included (i) the right to notice; (ii) the right to know the 'case to meet'; and (iii) the right to be heard (c) notice permitted those affected by a court's decision to protect their interests in the subject-matter under consideration and permitted the court to exercise its role judicially (d) at a minimum, reasonable notice had to be undertaken in a timely manner such that an affected person could properly prepare her case. It also served to inform that person (i) whether (s)he was the subject of the proceeding (ii) what the subject of the proceeding was (iii) of the relevant issues (iv) of the evidence to be considered by the decision-maker, and (v) of the consequences which may arise out of the proceeding." - See paragraphs 11 to 20.

Administrative Law - Topic 2004

Natural justice - General principles - What are the requirements of natural justice - [See Administrative Law - Topic 2002 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8587.1

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Practice - Notice - General - The Alberta Provincial Court discussed the duty to give notice of applications under s. 24 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and concluded that "notice of Charter, s. 24 applications is mandated by common law [R. v. Dwernychuk (M.K.) (1992 Alta. C.A.)] and regulation (Constitutional Notice Regulation). It must be given both to the Respondent on that application and to the court. Compliance with the notice requirements prescribed by the Constitutional Notice Regulation is a jurisdictional condition precedent to hearing a Charter, s. 24 application in the Provincial Court of Alberta" - See paragraphs 21 to 41.

Civil Rights - Topic 8587.1

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Practice - Notice - General - The Alberta Provincial Court discussed the duty to give notice of applications under s. 24 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - The court stated that "[c]ourts have a discretion to grant or deny requests for an adjournment. While a court is without jurisdiction to hear and determine a Charter, s. 24 application unless the notice provisions of the Constitutional Notice Regulation have been met, it has a discretion to adjourn proceedings in order to facilitate belated compliance with that requirement. The discretion to adjourn proceedings must be exercised judicially. [ ... ] The following, non-exhaustive list of considerations will apply in this court when requests are made to adjourn Charter, s. 24 applications because notice does not comply with the law: (a) each adjournment request must be examined on its individual merits, with the court being required to exercise its discretion to grant or deny an adjournment judicially; (b) the usual practice of the court will be to refuse adjournment applications to enable belated compliance with the Constitutional Notice Regulation or common law notice requirements; (c) it will be a rare case which is adjourned where no explanation is given for a failure to give proper notice; (d) where a reason is given for failing to give proper notice, that reason must be considered in the context of the principles of natural justice and the systemic demands of orderly trial processes; (e) where the reason for failing to give proper notice is because the alleged Charter violation could not have been foreseen by the exercise of due diligence, an adjournment will likely be granted. Counsel will be required to clearly demonstrate the unforeseeability of a potential Charter, s. 24 application; (f) where the reason for failing to give proper notice is to delay proceedings or for 'tactical reasons' (e.g., to compromise the respondent's ability to make full answer and defence) an adjournment will likely be denied; (g) where the reason for failing to give proper notice is neglect or lack of due diligence by the applicant, an adjournment will likely be denied.[ ... ]; (h) the position of and potential prejudice to the respondent must be taken into account.[ ... ]; (i) the seriousness of the charge(s); (j) the amount of time available during which notice could have been given; (k) steps taken by the applicant to avoid prejudice to the respondent and court; (l) steps taken to expedite the scheduling and hearing of the Charter, s. 24 application on the next occasion; (m) the viability of the Charter, s. 24 application." - See paragraphs 54 to 61.

Civil Rights - Topic 8587.1

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Practice - Notice - General - The accused was charged with offences under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Criminal Code - Trial was scheduled for October 15, 2009 - Six days before trial, the accused filed a Charter notice advising that he intended to seek the exclusion of evidence due to alleged violations of his ss. 8 and 9 Charter rights - The Crown sought an adjournment The accused conceded that reasonable notice had not been given and that 14 days notice in writing was required - He sought an adjournment - The Alberta Provincial Court found that the accused failed to comply with the notice requirements of pre-Charter common law, the notice requirements of post-Charter common law and the mandatory notice requirements of the Constitutional Notice Regulation - No reason or explanation for those failures was given - The charges were serious - The accused had 5.5 months in which to give notice - There was no evidence of steps taken to minimize prejudice to the Crown or to the orderly administration of criminal justice; one-half day of trial time was simply wasted - There was nothing beyond the notice itself with which to gauge the worth of the Charter, s. 24 application - Given the Crown's position, the court granted the adjournment - See paragraphs 62 to 64.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Chancellor of the University of Cambridge (1723), 1 Str. 557, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Mills, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 863; 67 N.R. 241; 16 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Lee (1987), 37 C.C.C.(3d) 407 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Kutynec (1992), 52 O.A.C. 59; 70 C.C.C.(3d) 289 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Yorke (1992), 115 N.S.R.(2d) 426; 314 A.P.R. 426; 77 C.C.C.(3d) 599 (C.A.), affd. (1993), 158 N.R. 396; 125 N.S.R.(2d) 238; 349 A.P.R. 238; 84 C.C.C.(3d) 286 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Feldman (A.F.) (1994), 42 B.C.A.C. 31; 67 W.A.C. 31; 91 C.C.C.(3d) 256 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. McKarris (M.J.) (1995), 131 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 181; 408 A.P.R. 181 (P.E.I.C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Pelletier (J.G.) (1995), 128 Sask.R. 214; 85 W.A.C. 214; 97 C.C.C.(3d) 139 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Dwernychuk (M.K.) (1992), 135 A.R. 31; 33 W.A.C. 31 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1993] 2 S.C.R. vii; 151 N.R. 400; 141 A.R. 317; 46 W.A.C. 317, consd. [para. 27].

R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Loveman (1992), 52 O.A.C. 94; 71 C.C.C.(3d) 123 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Callahan (S.L.) (2008), 455 A.R. 54; 2008 ABQB 324, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Henry (K.J.) (2004), 362 A.R. 309; 2004 ABQB 440, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Floate (T.D.) (2001), 308 A.R. 82; 2001 ABPC 250, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. J.D.S., [2004] A.R. Uned. 866; 2004 ABQB 963, refd to. [para. 39].

R.E.D.M. v. Director of Child Welfare - see S.E.M., Re.

S.E.M., Re (1988), 88 A.R. 346 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. MacLeod (M.W.) (2001), 283 A.R. 218; 2001 ABPC 7, refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Baker (D.F.) (2004), 372 A.R. 230; 2004 ABPC 218, refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. R.N.V. (2004), 370 A.R. 24; 2004 ABPC 186, refd to. [para. 46].

Khadr v. Prime Minister (Can.) et al. (2010), 397 N.R. 294; 2010 SCC 3, refd to. [para. 49].

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. 53].

R. v. Kristensen (J.C.) (2010), 474 A.R. 240; 479 W.A.C. 240; 2010 ABCA 37, refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. Darville (1956), 116 C.C.C. 113 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 55].

R. v. Tallcree (1989), 98 A.R. 343 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].

R. v. Holt (1991), 117 A.R. 218; 2 W.A.C. 218 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 60].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Blake, Sara, Administrative Law in Canada (4th Ed. 2006), pp. 29, 30 [para. 13]; 36 [para. 16]; 38 [paras. 17, 18]; 39 [para. 17].

de Smith, Stanley Alexander, Judicial Review of Administrative Action (4th Ed. 1980), pp. 158 to 162, fn. 33 [para. 11].

MacAulay, Robert W., and Sprague, James L.H., Practice and Procedure Before Administrative Tribunals (2002), pp. 12-18.4 [para. 15]; 12-19 [paras. 14, 19]; 12-30 to 12-30.2 [para. 15].

Moldaver, Michael, Long Criminal Trials: Masters of a System They are Meant to Serve (2005), 32 C.R.(6th) 316, generally [para. 53].

Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Report of the Chief Justice's Advisory Committee on Criminal Trials in the Superior Court of Justice (2006), Part VIII [para. 24].

Roach, Kent, Constitutional Remedies in Canada (1997), generally [para. 49].

Uniform Law Conference of Canada, Regulating Charter Applications: Final Report and Recommendations of the Working Group (2000), generally [para. 26].

Counsel:

J. Lee, for the Crown;

A. Gill and J. Chadi, for the accused.

This case was heard on October 15, 2009, at Wetaskiwin, Alberta, by Rosborough, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, who delivered the following reasons for decision on February 17, 2010.

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 practice notes
  • R. v. Spracklin (V.E.), (2013) 551 A.R. 323 (PC)
    • Canada
    • Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
    • October 2, 2012
    ...2006 BCPC 342, refd to. [para. 77]. R. v. Wolfe (J.D.) (2012), 547 A.R. 300; 2012 ABPC 245, refd to. [para. 87]. R. v. Bull (T.F.) (2010), 491 A.R. 335; 2010 ABPC 68, refd to. [para. R. v. Decoteau (R.P.), [2009] A.R. Uned. 782; 2009 ABPC 354, refd to. [para. 95]. R. v. Simpson (D.), [1995]......
  • R. v. Leitch (R.A.), (2010) 497 A.R. 60 (PC)
    • Canada
    • Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
    • June 22, 2010
    ...218 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 65]. R. v. Baker (D.F.) (2004), 374 A.R. 230; 2004 ABPC 218, refd to. [para. 65]. R. v. Bull (T.F.) (2010), 491 A.R. 335; 2010 ABPC 68, refd to. [para. R. v. Mousseau (T.M.) (2002), 324 A.R. 42; 2002 ABQB 150, refd to. [para. 70]. R. v. Wiebe (R.K.) (2007), ......
  • R v Ryland, 2017 ABQB 799
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • December 21, 2017
    ...it, the Crown argues that the Regulation is only the starting point for Charter notice requirements. The Crown relies on R v Bull, 2010 ABPC 68, with respect to the history and purpose of the Regulation.Case law[31] Mr. Ryland referred to the following cases:a) R v Jordan, 2016 SCC 27;b) R ......
  • R. v. Gladue (V.P.), (2014) 585 A.R. 328 (PC)
    • Canada
    • Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
    • November 1, 2013
    ...137 C.C.C.(3d) 422 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 36]. S.E.M., Re (1988), 88 A.R. 346 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 48]. R. v. Bull (T.F.) (2010), 491 A.R. 335; 2010 ABPC 68, refd to. [para. Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
14 cases
  • R. v. Spracklin (V.E.), (2013) 551 A.R. 323 (PC)
    • Canada
    • Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
    • October 2, 2012
    ...2006 BCPC 342, refd to. [para. 77]. R. v. Wolfe (J.D.) (2012), 547 A.R. 300; 2012 ABPC 245, refd to. [para. 87]. R. v. Bull (T.F.) (2010), 491 A.R. 335; 2010 ABPC 68, refd to. [para. R. v. Decoteau (R.P.), [2009] A.R. Uned. 782; 2009 ABPC 354, refd to. [para. 95]. R. v. Simpson (D.), [1995]......
  • R. v. Leitch (R.A.), (2010) 497 A.R. 60 (PC)
    • Canada
    • Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
    • June 22, 2010
    ...218 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 65]. R. v. Baker (D.F.) (2004), 374 A.R. 230; 2004 ABPC 218, refd to. [para. 65]. R. v. Bull (T.F.) (2010), 491 A.R. 335; 2010 ABPC 68, refd to. [para. R. v. Mousseau (T.M.) (2002), 324 A.R. 42; 2002 ABQB 150, refd to. [para. 70]. R. v. Wiebe (R.K.) (2007), ......
  • R v Ryland, 2017 ABQB 799
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • December 21, 2017
    ...it, the Crown argues that the Regulation is only the starting point for Charter notice requirements. The Crown relies on R v Bull, 2010 ABPC 68, with respect to the history and purpose of the Regulation.Case law[31] Mr. Ryland referred to the following cases:a) R v Jordan, 2016 SCC 27;b) R ......
  • R. v. Gladue (V.P.), (2014) 585 A.R. 328 (PC)
    • Canada
    • Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
    • November 1, 2013
    ...137 C.C.C.(3d) 422 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 36]. S.E.M., Re (1988), 88 A.R. 346 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 48]. R. v. Bull (T.F.) (2010), 491 A.R. 335; 2010 ABPC 68, refd to. [para. Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para......
  • 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