R. v. C.D., 2014 ABCA 333

• Judge: Costigan, Watson and Brown, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: October 02, 2014
• Citations: 2014 ABCA 333;(2014), 584 A.R. 222

R. v. C.D. (2014), 584 A.R. 222; 623 W.A.C. 222 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] A.R. TBEd. NO.074

Her Majesty the Queen (appellant) v. C.D. (respondent)

(1203-0280-A; 2014 ABCA 333)

Indexed As: R. v. C.D.

Alberta Court of Appeal

Costigan, Watson and Brown, JJ.A.

October 15, 2014.

Summary:

On April 18, 2010, the accused was charged with five counts, including two counts of sexual assault, one of choking with intent to overcome resistance, and two of breach of recognizance related to incidents on a northern Alberta aboriginal reserve. On October 31, 2012, a stay of proceedings was granted on the basis that the accused's right to trial within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter was violated. The Crown appealed.

The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the stay of proceedings and remitted the matter of the Court of Queen's Bench for trial.

Editor's Note: Certain names in the following case have been initialized or the case otherwise edited to prevent the disclosure of identities where required by law, publication ban, Maritime Law Book's editorial policy or otherwise.

Civil Rights - Topic 3265

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Speedy trial - Accused's right to - What constitutes "within a reasonable time" - On April 18, 2010, the accused was charged with five counts, including two counts of sexual assault, one of choking with intent to overcome resistance, and two of breach of recognizance related to incidents on a northern Alberta aboriginal reserve - On October 31, 2012, a stay of proceedings was granted on the basis that the accused's right to trial within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter was violated - The Crown appealed - The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the stay of proceedings and remitted the matter of the Court of Queen's Bench for trial - The motion judge erred in law and made palpable and overriding errors of fact in concluding that there was a breach of the right of the respondent to a trial within a reasonable time - The scrutinized delay was between April 18, 2010 and February 23, 2012, which involved a total period of 22 months - Of those 22 months, the period to the first preliminary inquiry date was from April to September 16, 2010 - No exception was taken to that five month period either - So the impugned delay came down to 17 months from September 16, 2010 to February 23, 2013 - The accused was released on some form of judicial interim release - The accused testified about the effect the delay had on him - Of the 30 months between charge and trial, he had been in remand custody for these counts for 10 months - As he was facing similar charges in a different case which has since gone to trial, the link between his detention and this case was not disclosed - He was on release for the other 20 months - He gave evidence that he began taking medication for depression, stress and mood swings in June 2010 - He attributed his mental state to several things: stress from these charges and the others he was facing; being in 23-hour lock up in remand; separation from his family, and loss of his job - The delay was reasonable and there was no prejudice - See paragraphs 3 to 25 and 29 to 40.

Civil Rights - Topic 3270

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Speedy trial - Accused's right to - Evidence of prejudice and causes of delay - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3265 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Lising (R.) et al., [2005] 3 S.C.R. 343; 341 N.R. 147; 217 B.C.A.C. 65; 358 W.A.C. 65; 2005 SCC 66, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Pires - see R. v. Lising (R.) et al.

R. v. Dietrich, [1970] 3 O.R. 725 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Godin (M.), [2009] 2 S.C.R. 3; 389 N.R. 1; 252 O.A.C. 377; 2009 SCC 26, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. O'Brien (M.D.), [2011] 2 S.C.R. 485; 417 N.R. 52; 304 N.S.R.(2d) 383; 960 A.P.R. 383; 2011 SCC 29, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. K.G.W. (2014), 324 O.A.C. 231; 2014 ONCA 598, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Konstantakos (G.) (2014), 315 O.A.C. 123; 298 C.R.R.(2d) 310; 2014 ONCA 21, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Hiscoe (J.S.) (2013), 328 N.S.R.(2d) 381; 1039 A.P.R. 381; 297 C.C.C.(3d) 35; 2013 NSCA 48, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Cater (K.) (2014), 349 N.S.R.(2d) 225; 1101 A.P.R. 225; 2014 NSCA 74, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. MacIntosh (E.F.) (2011), 310 N.S.R.(2d) 274; 983 A.P.R. 274; 281 C.C.C.(3d) 291; 2011 NSCA 111, affd. [2013] 2 S.C.R. 200; 443 N.R. 32; 329 N.S.R.(2d) 395; 1042 A.P.R. 395; 2013 SCC 23, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Horner (J.J.) (2012), 314 B.C.A.C. 272; 534 W.A.C. 272; 283 C.C.C.(3d) 453; 2012 BCCA 7, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Sanghera (B.) et al. (2014), 357 B.C.A.C. 175; 611 W.A.C. 175; 2014 BCCA 249, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Bellusci (R.), [2012] 2 S.C.R. 509; 433 N.R. 135; 2012 SCC 44, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. M.T. (2013), 308 O.A.C. 143; 299 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 2013 ONCA 476, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Babos (A.), [2014] 1 S.C.R. 309; 454 N.R. 86; 2014 SCC 16, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Bjelland (J.C.), [2009] 2 S.C.R. 651; 391 N.R. 202; 460 A.R. 230; 462 W.A.C. 230; 2009 SCC 38, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Anderson (T.) (2013), 423 Sask.R. 61; 588 W.A.C. 61; 300 C.C.C.(3d) 296; 2013 SKCA 92, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Morin, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 771; 134 N.R. 321; 53 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 29].

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. 29].

R. v. Florence (D.) et al. (2014), 322 O.A.C. 179; 2014 ONCA 443, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Khan (K.) (2011), 277 O.A.C. 165; 270 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 2011 ONCA 173, leave to appeal denied (2011), 426 N.R. 400; 291 O.A.C. 397 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Allen (H.D.) (1996), 92 O.A.C. 345; 110 C.C.C.(3d) 331 (C.A.), affd. [1997] 3 S.C.R. 700; 220 N.R. 67; 104 O.A.C. 237, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Darwish (W.H.) (2010), 258 O.A.C. 272; 252 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 2010 ONCA 124, leave to appeal denied (2010), 410 N.R. 399; 279 O.A.C. 399 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Dias (G.) (2011), 502 A.R. 156; 517 W.A.C. 156; 265 C.C.C.(3d) 34; 2010 ABCA 382, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Wilkinson (T.E.) (2010), 289 B.C.A.C. 161; 489 W.A.C. 161; 213 C.R.R.(2d) 129; 2010 BCCA 316, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Nasogaluak (L.M.), [2010] 2 S.C.R. 206; 398 N.R. 107; 474 A.R. 88; 479 W.A.C. 88; 2010 SCC 6, refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Rahey, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 588; 75 N.R. 81; 78 N.S.R.(2d) 183; 193 A.P.R. 183, refd to. [para. 42].

Bedford et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2013] 3 S.C.R. 1101; 452 N.R. 1; 312 O.A.C. 53; 2013 SCC 72, refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Holt (1991), 117 A.R. 218; 2 W.A.C. 218 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Cornell (J.M.) (2009), 454 A.R. 362; 455 W.A.C. 362; 2009 ABCA 147, affd. in part, [2010] 2 S.C.R. 142; 404 N.R. 133; 487 A.R. 1; 495 W.A.C. 1; 2010 SCC 31, refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Sazant (M.), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 635; 348 N.R. 1; 210 O.A.C. 376; 2004 SCC 77, refd to. [para. 52].

Counsel:

S.D. Hughson, Q.C., for the appellant;

D.J. Royer, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on October 2, 2014, by Costigan, Watson and Brown, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal. The following memorandum of judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered at Edmonton, Alberta, on October 15, 2014.