R. v. Cheung (D.) et al., (2000) 279 A.R. 201 (QB)

• Judge: Binder, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: December 06, 2000
• Citations: (2000), 279 A.R. 201 (QB);2000 ABQB 905

R. v. Cheung (D.) (2000), 279 A.R. 201 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] A.R. TBEd. DE.074

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by the Attorney General for Canada (respondent) v. Donald Cheung et al. (applicants) and Edmonton Journal, a daily newspaper operated by Edmonton Journal Group ULC and the Edmonton Sun, a division of Sun Media Corporation (intervenors)

Edmonton Journal, a daily newspaper operated by Edmonton Journal Group ULC and the Edmonton Sun, a division of Sun Media Corporation (applicants) and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by the Attorney General for Canada (respondent)

(0003 2182 C5; 2000 ABQB 905)

Indexed As: R. v. Cheung (D.) et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Binder, J.

December 6, 2000.

Summary:

Several accused were charged with conspiracy, participating in a criminal organization and drug offences. Some of the accused applied for a ban on publication of any portion of the pretrial proceedings. At issue was whether s. 648(1) of the Criminal Code applied to pre-jury selection proceedings.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that s. 648(1) did not apply to pre-jury selection proceedings. However, the court ordered a publication ban on all voir dires related to the admissibility of evidence.

Criminal Law - Topic 4348

Procedure - Jury - Evidence - Prohibition against publication of information obtained in jury's absence - Several accused were charged with conspiracy, participating in a criminal organization and drug offences - Some of the accused applied for a ban on publication of any portion of the pretrial proceedings - The accused argued that s. 648(1) of the Criminal Code operated to prohibit publication with respect to pre-jury selection proceedings under s. 645(5) - Section 648(1) of the Criminal Code prohibited the publication of any portion of a trial at which the jury was not present - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that s. 648(1) did not apply to proceedings which occurred prior to the empanelling of the jury - However, the court held that a partial ban was appropriate - The court ordered a publication ban on all voir dires relating to the admissibility of evidence.

Criminal Law - Topic 4490

Procedure - Trial - Publicity - Restrictions - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4348 ].

Cases Noticed:

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Dagenais et al., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835; 175 N.R. 1; 76 O.A.C. 81, consd. [paras. 6, 15].

R. v. McIntosh (B.B.), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 686; 178 N.R. 161; 79 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Morgentaler, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 463; 157 N.R. 97; 125 N.S.R.(2d) 81; 349 A.P.R. 81, refd to. [paras. 6, 34, 73].

Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [paras. 6, 34].

R. v. Gisby (K.) et al. (2000), 271 A.R. 303; 234 W.A.C. 303 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 6, 34].

R. v. Bernshaw (N.), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 254; 176 N.R. 81; 53 B.C.A.C. 1; 87 W.A.C. 1; 35 C.R.(4th) 201; 95 C.C.C.(3d) 193; [1995] 3 W.W.R. 457; 8 M.V.R.(3d) 75, refd to. [para. 6].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. New Brunswick (Attorney General), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 480; 203 N.R. 169; 182 N.B.R.(2d) 81; 463 A.P.R. 81, refd to. [para. 6].

Phillips et al. v. Richard, J., [1995] 2 S.C.R. 97; 180 N.R. 1; 141 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 403 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 6].

Edmonton Journal v. Alberta (Attorney General), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1326; 102 N.R. 321; 103 A.R. 321, refd to. [para. 6].

Edmonton (City) v. Kara et al. (1995), 164 A.R. 64; 26 Alta. L.R.(3d) 28 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Basarabas; R. v. Spek, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 730; 46 N.R. 69, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Hasselwander, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 398; 152 N.R. 247; 62 O.A.C. 285; 81 C.C.C.(3d) 471; 20 C.R.(4th) 277, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society (No. 2), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 606; 139 N.R. 241; 114 N.S.R.(2d) 91; 313 A.P.R. 91, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Heywood (R.L.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 761; 174 N.R. 81; 50 B.C.A.C. 161; 82 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Thompson (1917), 12 Cr. App. Rep. 261 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Brown, [1997] O.J. No. 6168 (Gen. Div.), not folld. [paras. 8, 14].

R. v. Regan (G.A.) (1997), 174 N.S.R.(2d) 28; 532 A.P.R. 28; 124 C.C.C.(3d) 77 (S.C.), refd to. [paras. 8, 14, 19].

R. v. DeSousa, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 944; 142 N.R. 1; 56 O.A.C. 109, refd to. [para. 9].

Danson v. Ontario (Attorney General), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1086; 112 N.R. 362; 41 O.A.C. 250, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Martin (1991), 43 O.A.C. 378; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 71 (C.A.), affd. [1992] 1 S.C.R. 838; 145 N.R. 161; 59 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Stevens (B.G.) (1992), 82 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (Man. Prov. Ct.), affd. (1995), 100 Man.R.(2d) 81; 91 W.A.C. 81; 96 C.C.C.(3d) 238 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Brown (L.A.) et al. (1998), 54 O.T.C. 167; 126 C.C.C.(3d) 187 (Gen. Div.), not folld. [paras. 9, 18].

R. v. CHBC Television (1999), 118 B.C.A.C. 267; 192 W.A.C. 267; 132 C.C.C.(3d) 390 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 9, 48].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335, refd to. [para. 9].

Thomson Newspapers Co. et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 877; 226 N.R. 1; 109 O.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 9].

Attis v. Board of Education of District No. 15 et al., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 825; 195 N.R. 81; 171 N.B.R.(2d) 321; 437 A.P.R. 321, refd to. [para. 9].

Ross v. New Brunswick School District No. 15 - see Attis v. Board of Education of District No. 15 et al.

Libman v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 569; 218 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Gray (1989), 54 Man.R.(2d) 240; 44 C.C.C.(3d) 222 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Québec (Procureur général), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; 94 N.R. 167; 24 Q.A.C. 2, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Butler and McCord, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 452; 134 N.R. 81; 78 Man.R.(2d) 1; 16 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Regan (1998), 159 D.L.R.(4th) 350 (N.S.S.C.), refd to. [para. 9].

Ontario v. Canadian Pacific Ltd., [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1031; 183 N.R. 325; 82 O.A.C. 243, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Ross, [1995] O.J. No. 3180 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [paras. 10, 50].

R. v. Bernardo, [1994] O.J. No. 4119 (Gen. Div.), not folld. [paras. 10, 51].

R. v. Bernardo, [1995] O.J. No. 247 (Gen. Div.), not folld. [paras. 10, 52].

R. v. Curtis (1991), 66 C.C.C.(3d) 156 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [paras. 10, 55].

Tschritter v. Sohn, Harrison and Bistritz (1989), 94 A.R. 304; 57 D.L.R.(4th) 579 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 10, 76].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 645(5), sect. 648(1) [para. 13].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Borens, S., Some Thoughts Concerning the Conduct of a Voir Dire in Criminal Trials (1989), 31 C.L.Q. 263, generally [para. 8].

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates (Oct. 4, 1994), p. 6521 [para. 36].

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates (Dec. 8, 1994), p. 1096 [para. 38].

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates (Dec. 13, 1994), p. 9010 [para. 39].

Côté, Pierre-André, Interpretation of Legislation in Canada (2nd Ed. 1991), generally [para. 7].

Driedger, Elmer A., Construction of Statutes (3rd Ed. 1994), generally [paras. 7, 10]; pp. 128, 417 [para. 33].

Hansard - see Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates.

Counsel:

M. Naeem Rauf, for Donald Cheung;

David S. Scorgie, for Josephine Voon;

Bryan D. Newton, for Tuan Quoc Trang;

J. Macleod Walker, for Rocky Allan Simmons;

Denis R. Noel, for the Edmonton Journal;

Barry Zalmanowitz, for the Edmonton Sun;

James Shaw, for the Attorney General of Canada.

This application was heard on November 27 and 28, 2000, by Binder, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment on December 6, 2000.