R. v. Carpenter (L.), 2005 SKQB 432

• Judge: Krueger, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: October 11, 2005
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2005 SKQB 432;(2005), 272 Sask.R. 31 (QB)

R. v. Carpenter (L.) (2005), 272 Sask.R. 31 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2005] Sask.R. TBEd. OC.015

Lenard Carpenter (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)

(2005 Q.B.A. No. 20; 2005 SKQB 432)

Indexed As: R. v. Carpenter (L.)

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Battleford

Krueger, J.

October 11, 2005.

Summary:

The accused was charged with four separate offences of cruelty to animals under s. 446(1)(a) of the Criminal Code and s. 4 of the Animal Protection Act. The accused applied for a judicial stay of the charges pursuant to ss. 7 and 11(a) of the Charter on the basis that the informations were too vague as to time and identity of the particular animals affected by the alleged neglect to permit him to make full answer and defence.

The Saskatchewan Provincial Court, in a decision reported at 268 Sask.R. 313, dismissed the application. The accused appealed.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal at this stage of the proceedings where the ruling appealed from was not a final order within the context of s. 813(a)(i) of the Code.

Civil Rights - Topic 8412

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Criminal proceedings - Appeals from interlocutory decisions - When available - [See Criminal Law - Topic 7473.2 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 7473.2

Summary conviction proceedings - Appeals - General - Appeal from interlocutory decision - The accused was charged with four separate offences of cruelty to animals under s. 446(1)(a) of the Criminal Code and s. 4 of the Animal Protection Act - The accused applied for a judicial stay of the charges pursuant to ss. 7 and 11(a) of the Charter on the basis that the informations were too vague as to time and identity of the particular animals affected by the alleged neglect to permit him to make full answer and defence - The application was dismissed - The accused appealed - He argued that since his application was a "stand alone" application (not made during the trial process), the ruling was a final order which was appealable under s. 813(a)(i) of the Code - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that the ruling that the informations were sufficient did not bring an end to the proceedings and it was not a final order in the context of s. 813(a)(i) - Nor did the fact that the application was made before pleas make it a final order - The court therefore had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Leitner (S.B.) (1998), 173 Sask.R. 269 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Ironeagle (H.) (2000), 202 Sask.R. 268; 2000 SKQB 553, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Laviolette (R.) (2005), 260 Sask.R. 121; 2005 SKQB 61, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Music Explosion Ltd. (1996), 108 Man.R.(2d) 311 (Q.B.), consd. [para. 7].

R. v. Adams (D.C.) (2001), 290 A.R. 316 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 9].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 813(a)(i) [para. 3].

Counsel:

S.A. Busse, Q.C., for the appellant/Carpenter;

W.R. Campbell, for the respondent/Crown.

This matter was heard before Krueger, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Battleford, who delivered the following decision on October 11, 2005.