R. v. C.W., (2011) 512 A.R. 310 (PC)

• Judge: Lefever, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: June 29, 2011
• Citations: (2011), 512 A.R. 310 (PC);2011 ABPC 205

R. v. C.W. (2011), 512 A.R. 310 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2011] A.R. TBEd. JL.091

Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) v. C.W. (applicant)

(081541260Y1; 2011 ABPC 205)

Indexed As: R. v. C.W.

Alberta Provincial Court

Lefever, P.C.J.

June 29, 2011.

Summary:

The accused youth was charged in the Youth Justice Court with two sexual offences committed when he was 12-13 years of age. Six months later, the trial was stayed. The youth argued that the prosecution violated his s. 7 and s. 11(b) Charter rights. He sought costs against the Crown under s. 24(1) of the Charter. The Crown brought a preliminary application questioning the Youth Justice Court's jurisdiction to hear the costs application where the charges were stayed.

The Alberta Provincial Court held that the Youth Justice Court retained jurisdiction to adjudicate on the youth's Charter application and any remedies that might be granted, including costs.

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 8380.7

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Costs - [See Courts - Topic 8409 ].

Courts - Topic 2013.1

Jurisdiction - General principles - Criminal cases - Costs - [See Courts - Topic 8409 ].

Courts - Topic 2186

Jurisdiction - Loss or termination of jurisdiction upon fulfilling function (functus officio) - Prosecutions or criminal trials or matters - [See Courts - Topic 8409 ].

Courts - Topic 8409

Provincial courts - Alberta - Provincial Court - Jurisdiction - Costs - A youth was charged with sexual offences - The youth pleaded not guilty and a trial date was set - Before the Provincial Court, sitting as a Youth Justice Court (YJC), began to hear evidence, the Crown stayed the charges - The youth had already given the Crown notice that he would be seeking costs against the Crown as a remedy under s. 24(1) of the Charter for infringing his rights under s. 7 and s. 11(b) - On an preliminary application, the Crown argued that the YJC lacked jurisdiction to hear the costs application - It was agreed that a YJC sitting as a trial court had jurisdiction to award costs against the Crown as a remedy for a Charter breach - However, the Crown argued that because the YJC was sitting as a "docket" court rather than a "trial" court until evidence was heard, the staying of the charges before evidence was heard rendered the YJC functus - The Alberta Provincial Court held that notwithstanding the staying of the charges, the YJC retained jurisdiction to adjudicate the youth's Charter application and the remedies, if any, that might be granted if the application succeeded - When the youth pleaded to the charges, the YJC became a "trial" court - That jurisdiction was not lost or forfeited as a consequence of the Crown staying the charges - The court opined that the YJC, which had not yet dealt with the outstanding Charter application, was not functus when the charges were stayed.

Criminal Law - Topic 4591

Procedure - Costs - Against the Crown - [See Courts - Topic 8409 ].

Practice - Topic 7351

Costs - Costs in criminal proceedings - Payable by Crown - Charter violations - [See Courts - Topic 8409 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Mills, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 863; 67 N.R. 241; 16 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Conway (P.), [2010] 1 S.C.R. 765; 402 N.R. 255; 263 O.A.C. 61, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. 974649 Ontario Inc. et al. (2001), 279 N.R. 345; 154 O.A.C. 345; 159 C.C.C.(3d) 321 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Petersen, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 493; 44 N.R. 92, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Blair and Karashowsky, [1975] 5 W.W.R. 723 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Cunsolo (R.), [2008] O.T.C. Uned. K09; 180 C.R.R.(2d) 174 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Nixon (O.) (2011), 417 N.R. 274; 502 A.R. 18; 517 W.A.C. 18; 2011 SCC 34, dist. [para. 34].

R. v. Fach (C.) (2004), 192 O.A.C. 104 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Menard (P.L.), [2007] B.C.T.C. Uned. 454; 221 C.C.C.(3d) 535 (S.C.), dist. [para. 38].

R. v. B.M., [2003] O.T.C. 331 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Pirone, [2003] O.J. No. 1324 (C.J.), dist. [para. 45].

R. v. Booth, 2002 BCPC 119, dist. [para. 46].

R. v. Manywounds (J.W.) et al. (2007), 421 A.R. 282; 2007 ABPC 202, refd to. [para. 47].

Hirji v. Alberta et al. (2004), 375 A.R. 243; 2004 ABPC 92, refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Conley, [1979] 5 W.W.R. 692; 17 A.R. 447 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 56].

R. v. Head, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 684; 70 N.R. 364; 53 Sask.R. 1, refd to. [para. 57].

Doucet-Boudreau et al. v. Nova Scotia (Minister of Education) et al., [2003] 3 S.C.R. 3; 312 N.R. 1; 218 N.S.R.(2d) 311; 687 A.P.R. 311, refd to. [para. 58].

Statutes Noticed:

Constitutional Notice Regulation - see Provincial Court Act Regulations (Alta.).

Provincial Court Act Regulations (Alta.), Constitutional Notice Regulation, Reg. 102/99, sect. 1(1), sect. 2, sect. 3, sect. 4 [para. 21].

Counsel:

Michelle C. Doyle, for the respondent;

Maggie M. O'Shaughnessy, for the applicant.

This application was heard at Calgary, Alberta, before Lefever, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on June 29, 2011.