R. v. Checkosis (C.V.), (1999) 190 Sask.R. 134 (ProvCt)
Judge | Kolenick, P.C.J. |
Court | Provincial Court of Saskatchewan (Canada) |
Case Date | October 04, 1999 |
Jurisdiction | Saskatchewan |
Citations | (1999), 190 Sask.R. 134 (ProvCt) |
R. v. Checkosis (C.V.) (1999), 190 Sask.R. 134 (ProvCt)
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite: [2000] Sask.R. TBEd. FE.016
Her Majesty the Queen v. Carl Vincent Checkosis (No. 2)
(Information No. 38762932)
Indexed As: R. v. Checkosis (C.V.)
Saskatchewan Provincial Court
Kolenick, P.C.J.
October 4, 1999.
Summary:
A police officer on patrol mistook Checkosis for a known prohibited driver, and stopped the vehicle he was driving. When the officer noticed his mistake, he explained the situation to Checkosis, but then asked him to identify himself and to produce his driver's license. Checkosis provided a false name. He was charged with wilful obstruction of a peace officer engaged in the lawful execution of his duty. The issues at trial were whether Checkosis had been arbitrarily detained contrary to s. 9 of the Charter, and whether the officer was engaged in the lawful execution of his duty after realizing his mistake.
The Saskatchewan Provincial Court ruled that once the mistake was realized, what followed was an arbitrary detention and the officer was no longer engaged in the lawful execution of his duty. The acused was found not guilty.
Civil Rights - Topic 3603
Detention and imprisonment - Detention - What constitutes arbitrary detention - A police officer on patrol mistook Checkosis for a known prohibited driver, and stopped the vehicle he was driving - When the officer noticed his mistake, he explained the situation to Checkosis, but then asked him to identify himself and to produce his driver's license - Checkosis provided a false name - He was charged with wilful obstruction of a peace officer engaged in the lawful execution of his duty - An issue at trial was whether Checkosis had been arbitrarily detained contrary to s. 9 of the Charter - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court ruled that once the mistake was realized, what followed was an arbitrary detention and admission of the evidence of obstruction would render the trial unfair - See paragraphs 6 to 10.
Police - Topic 3109
Powers - Investigation - Motor vehicles - A police officer on patrol mistook Checkosis for a known prohibited driver, and stopped the vehicle he was driving - When the officer noticed his mistake, he explained the situation to Checkosis, but then asked him to identify himself and to produce his driver's license - Checkosis provided a false name - He was charged with wilful obstruction of a peace officer engaged in the lawful execution of his duty - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court ruled that once the mistake was realized, the officer was no longer engaged in the lawful execution of his duty - See paragraphs 11 to 14.
Police - Topic 3109
Powers - Investigation - Motor vehicles - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3603 ].
Police - Topic 3204
Powers - Direction - Stopping vehicles -General - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3603 and Police - Topic 3109 ].
Cases Noticed:
R. v. Lott (E.C.) (1998), 174 Sask.R. 133; 38 M.V.R.(3d) 140 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 7].
R. v. Duncanson (1991), 93 Sask.R. 193; 4 W.A.C. 193; 30 M.V.R.(2d) 17 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].
R. v. Green (L.R.) (1995), 132 Sask.R. 192 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 8].
R. v. Stillman (W.W.D.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 607; 209 N.R. 81; 185 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 472 A.P.R. 1; 5 C.R.(5th) 1, appld. [para. 10]
R. v. L.S.L. (1991), 89 Sask.R. 267 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 11].
Statutes Noticed:
Highway Traffic Act, S.S. 1986, c. H-3.1, sect. 20(1), sect. 40(8), sect. 40(9) [para. 6].
Counsel:
Kimberley Humphries, for the Crown;
Donald MacKinnon, for the accused.
This matter was heard by Kolenick, P.C.J., of the Saskatchewan Provincial Court, who delivered the following decision on October 4, 1999.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
R. v. Houben,
...321 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7]. R. v. Lott (E.C.) (1998), 174 Sask.R. 133 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 7]. R. v. Checkosis (C.V.) (1999), 190 Sask.R. 134; 49 M.V.R.(3d) 303 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. R. v. Duncanson (1991), 93 Sask.R. 193; 4 W.A.C. 193; 12 C.R.(4th) 86 (C.A.), refd to. [para. ......
-
R. v. Uhryn (L.M.), 2003 SKPC 166
...27, footnote 9]. R. v. Hunter (S.E.) (2003), 229 Sask.R. 286 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 27, footnote 9]. R. v. Checkosis (C.V.) (1999), 190 Sask.R. 134; 49 M.V.R.(3d) 303 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 27, footnote R. v. L.S.L. (1991), 89 Sask.R. 267 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 27, footnote 10]......
-
R. v. McDonald (W.), (2001) 224 Sask.R. 235 (PC)
...86 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13]. R. v. Rost (K.O.) (1999), 176 Sask.R. 260 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 13]. R. v. Checkosis (C.V.) (1999), 190 Sask.R. 134 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 13]. R. v. Lott (E.C.) (1999), 174 Sask.R. 133 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 13]. R. v. Leclair and Ross (1989), 91 N.......
-
R. v. Houben,
...321 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7]. R. v. Lott (E.C.) (1998), 174 Sask.R. 133 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 7]. R. v. Checkosis (C.V.) (1999), 190 Sask.R. 134; 49 M.V.R.(3d) 303 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. R. v. Duncanson (1991), 93 Sask.R. 193; 4 W.A.C. 193; 12 C.R.(4th) 86 (C.A.), refd to. [para. ......
-
R. v. Uhryn (L.M.), 2003 SKPC 166
...27, footnote 9]. R. v. Hunter (S.E.) (2003), 229 Sask.R. 286 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 27, footnote 9]. R. v. Checkosis (C.V.) (1999), 190 Sask.R. 134; 49 M.V.R.(3d) 303 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 27, footnote R. v. L.S.L. (1991), 89 Sask.R. 267 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 27, footnote 10]......
-
R. v. McDonald (W.), (2001) 224 Sask.R. 235 (PC)
...86 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13]. R. v. Rost (K.O.) (1999), 176 Sask.R. 260 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 13]. R. v. Checkosis (C.V.) (1999), 190 Sask.R. 134 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 13]. R. v. Lott (E.C.) (1999), 174 Sask.R. 133 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 13]. R. v. Leclair and Ross (1989), 91 N.......
-
R. v. Houben (K.), (2004) 246 Sask.R. 34 (PC)
...321 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16]. R. v. Lott (E.C.) (1998), 174 Sask.R. 133 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 16]. R. v. Checkosis (C.V.) (1999), 190 Sask.R. 134; 49 M.V.R.(3d) 303 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. R. v. Ladouceur, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1257; 108 N.R. 171; 40 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 16]. R. v.......