R. v. Bunn (T.A.), (1994) 97 Man.R.(2d) 20 (CA)

• Judge: Scott, C.J.M., Philp and Lyon, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
• Case Date: September 20, 1994
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (1994), 97 Man.R.(2d) 20 (CA)

R. v. Bunn (T.A.) (1994), 97 Man.R.(2d) 20 (CA);

    79 W.A.C. 20

MLB headnote and full text

Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) v. Thomas Andrew Bunn (appellant)

(Suit No. A.R. 93-30-01424)

Indexed As: R. v. Bunn (T.A.)

Manitoba Court of Appeal

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

September 20, 1994.

Summary:

An accused lawyer failed to appear before a Provincial Court judge for the trial of his client on minor charges under the Criminal Code and the Highway Traffic Act. He was convicted for contempt of court and fined $400. The accused appealed his conviction.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and entered an acquittal.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 673

Duty to court - Contempt - What consti­tutes - [See Contempt - Topic 510 ].

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 720

Duty to court - Appearances - Re double booking - An accused lawyer was con­victed of contempt - The accused double booked and failed to appear before a Provincial Court judge for his client's trial on minor charges under the Criminal Code and the Highway Traffic Act - On his client's trial date he made arrangements for other representation - In setting aside the conviction, the Manitoba Court of Appeal held that, although it would have been preferred practice, the accused did not have a duty to advise the Crown of the pending conflict - See paragraph 29.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 720

Duty to court - Appearances - Re double booking - [See Contempt - Topic 510 ].

Contempt - Topic 6

General principles - Powers of courts - The Manitoba Court of Appeal reviewed principles applicable to the use of con­tempt powers, stating that "[t]he judge's contempt of court powers have been described as 'coercive powers'. Failure to exercise them with 'scrupulous care' and restraint will inevitably erode the public's respect for, and confidence in, the judicial system." - See paragraphs 2, 3.

Contempt - Topic 510

What constitutes contempt - Criminal contempt - An accused lawyer, who double booked, failed to appear before a Provincial Court judge for his client's trial on minor charges under the Criminal Code and the Highway Traffic Act - He did not inform the Crown or the courts of the conflict - On the trial date he made ar­rangements for other representation - The client arrived late - The new lawyer did not have instructions - The judge denied the lawyer the opportunity to speak with the client or the accused who was in another courtroom - The Manitoba Court of Appeal concluded that the accused's conduct did not constitute criminal con­tempt - Any discourtesy was unintended and was assuaged by apology.

Contempt - Topic 1165

What constitutes contempt - Counsel - Failure to appear - [See Contempt - Topic 510 ].

Contempt - Topic 5105

Practice - Hearing - Who should act as judge - An accused lawyer failed to appear before a judge for his client's trial on minor charges - On the day of the trial, he made arrangements for other represen­tation - The client arrived late - The new lawyer did not have instructions - The judge convicted the accused of contempt - In setting aside the conviction, the Mani­toba Court of Appeal stated that the situa­tion did not involve such contuma­cious conduct during the course of a trial as to require immediate judicial action to pre­vent interference with or obstruction of the judicial process - The judge should have allowed the Attorney General to pursue the alleged contempt before another judge - See paragraph 33.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Pinx, [1980] 1 W.W.R. 77; 1 Man.R.(2d) 1 (C.A.), folld. [para. 13].

R. v. Hill (1976), 33 C.C.C.(2d) 60 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Swartz (1977), 34 C.C.C. 477 (Man. C.A.), consd. [para. 23].

R. v. Anders (1982), 67 C.C.C.(2d) 139 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

British Columbia Government Employees' Union v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 214; 87 N.R. 241; 71 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 93; 220 A.P.R. 93; 31 B.C.L.R.(2d) 273, consd. [para. 23].

R. v. Jones (1978), 42 C.C.C.(2d) 192 (Ont. C.A.), consd. [para. 28].

R. v. Doz, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 463; 79 N.R. 151; 82 A.R. 394, consd. [para. 34].

R. v. Doz (1985), 59 A.R. 185; 19 C.C.C.(3d) 434 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Hill (1974), 22 C.C.C.(2d) 64 (B.C.C.A.), consd. [para. 36].

R. v. Paul, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 169; 33 N.R. 91, consd. [para. 36].

R. v. Glasner (E.) (1994), 74 O.A.C. 81 (C.A.), consd. [para. 37].

R. v. McKeown, [1971] S.C.R. 446; 2 C.C.C.(2d) 1; 16 D.L.R.(3d) 390, refd to. [para. 37].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, generally [paras. 4, 36].

Highway Traffic Act, R.S.M. 1987, c. H-60; C.C.S.M., c. H-60, generally [para. 4].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canadian Judicial Council, A Study Paper: Some Guidelines on the Use of Con­tempt Powers (Dec. 1992), generally [para. 2].

Counsel:

F.E. Bortoluzzi, for the appellant;

J.G. Dangerfield, Q.C., appeared amicus curiae.

This appeal was heard on September 20, 1994, before Scott, C.J.M., Philp and Lyon, JJ.A., of the Manitoba Court of Appeal.

On September 20, 1994, the decision was delivered by the court, with written reasons on October 6, 1994.