R. v. Clarke (B.E.) et al., 2015 NSSC 117

• Judge: Coady, J.
• Court: Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: April 14, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: 2015 NSSC 117;(2015), 358 N.S.R.(2d) 163 (SC)

R. v. Clarke (B.E.) (2015), 358 N.S.R.(2d) 163 (SC);

    1131 A.P.R. 163

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. AP.031

R. Blois Colpitts (applicant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)

(CRH 346068; 2015 NSSC 117)

Indexed As: R. v. Clarke (B.E.) et al.

Nova Scotia Supreme Court

Coady, J.

April 16, 2015.

Summary:

The accused were charged with fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud for allegedly manipulating the price of Knowledge House Inc. shares over an 18 month period in 2000 and 2001. An extensive R.C.M.P. investigation commenced in 2003 with the assistance of an expert (Evans). Evans' 2010 report supported the Crown's theory and he would be a critical Crown witness at trial. The accused sought Crown disclosure of two drafts of Evans' report and an unredacted copy of an electronic Task 335 folder, which contained all R.C.M.P. discussions with Evans and any materials forwarded to him. The Crown claimed solicitor-client and litigation privilege respecting the redacted portions of the folder. The accused also sought particulars of the alleged offences to ensure that they would be able to make full answer and defence.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, in a judgment reported (2012), 319 N.S.R.(2d) 384; 1010 A.P.R. 384, ordered that the Crown disclose the two draft reports and the unredacted copy of the Task 335 folder. The court declined to order further particulars, other than ordering the Crown to advise the accused whether they intended to lead evidence from other conspirators beyond the 13 identified. One of the accused (Colpitts) applied for an order that the Crown breached its duty under R. v. McNeil (SCC) to make reasonable inquiries respecting relevant material known to be in the possession of the Nova Scotia Securities Commission and to attempt to obtain those materials. Colpitts sought disclosure or, alternatively, access to the materials.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, in a judgment reported (2013), 344 N.S.R.(2d) 10; 1089 A.P.R. 10, held that the Crown breached its McNeil obligation. Since Colpitts already had the materials (but was precluded by court order from accessing them), the appropriate order was to permit Colpitts access to the materials. Colpitts now applied for disclosure of all e- mails/correspondence between the Crown and the Securities Commission after the date the indictment was preferred. The Crown, which possessed the information, had declined to disclose it on the ground that the communications were not relevant.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, in a judgment reported (2014), 349 N.S.R.(2d) 352; 1101 A.P.R. 352, ordered that the e-mails/correspondence be disclosed. Given the previous McNeil application, there was a reasonable possibility that the e-mails/correspondence contained relevant information. The Crown's bald statement that the information was irrelevant was an assertion only. The court was satisfied that the information could reasonably assist all of the accused in advancing a defence or defining their trial strategy. The accused applied to have the judge recuse himself, alleging both actual bias and a reasonable apprehension of bias based on remarks made in two case management conferences and in the prior decision on third party production (i.e., unable to adjudicate the matter impartially).

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, in a judgment reported (2014), 353 N.S.R.(2d) 355; 1115 A.P.R. 355, dismissed the recusal application. Colpitts then brought an O'Connor application for the Securities Commission to disclose third party documents for which privilege was claimed. Of the 19 third parties given notice, only one (National Bank) responded by advising that it had a possible interest in 125 of the thousands of documents. A hearing was held to determine which of the documents were privileged. Once the privilege issue was resolved, the court would then determine the "likely relevance" of the remaining non-privileged documents as directed by O'Connor and McNeil.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, in a judgment reported (2015), 355 N.S.R.(2d) 227; 1123 A.P.R. 227, determined which documents were privileged. Now at issue was the "likely relevance" of the non-privileged documents.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, in a judgment reported (2015), 356 N.S.R.(2d) 364; 1126 A.P.R. 364, held that the accused failed to meet the threshold onus of showing that any of the 400 documents, other than some investigator's notes, were "likely relevant". One of the accused (Colpitts) brought a second recusal motion, to be considered cumulatively with the first recusal motion and expanded grounds.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court dismissed the application.

Courts - Topic 686

Judges - Disqualification - Bias - By trial or applications judge - [See Courts - Topic 691 ].

Courts - Topic 691

Judges - Disqualification - Bias - Reasonable apprehension of bias - The accused were charged with fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud for allegedly manipulating the share price of Knowledge House Inc. over an 18 month period in 2000 and 2001 - There were a number of pre-trial proceedings dealing with, inter alia, disclosure - The accused applied to have the judge recuse himself, alleging both actual bias and a reasonable apprehension of bias based on remarks made in two case management conferences and in the prior decision on third party production (i.e., pre-judged the matter) - The trial judge dismissed the recusal application - Absent cogent evidence of bias, actual or perceived, the presumption of impartiality prevailed and the accused failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, actual or reasonably apprehended bias - The comments were respecting procedural/scheduling issues in the much delayed trial - There were no comments on substantive issues or respecting the credibility of witnesses - A reasonable person would perceive the comments as efforts to manage the trial in a way that respected the accused's fair trial rights, including their right to make full answer and defence - The court was concerned with a number of factors that affected trial fairness, efficiency and management - A reasonable person would not consider the court to be an advocate rather than an impartial adjudicator - A judge did not create a reasonable apprehension of bias by being openly critical of the Crown or defence counsel where criticism was appropriate - Following three more hearings on procedural matters, one of the accused (Colpitts) brought a second recusal motion, to be considered cumulatively with the first recusal motion and expanded grounds - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court dismissed the application - The second recusal motion was partly an attempt to re-litigate the first recusal motion and a collateral attack on the court's O'Connor application decision - The three expanded grounds relied on "sound more like grounds of appeal" - The presumption of judicial impartiality was not displaced.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Baccari (A.P.) (2011), 510 A.R. 301; 527 W.A.C. 301; 2011 ABCA 205, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Bulua (C.S.), [2006] B.C.T.C. 1234; 2006 BCSC 1234, refd to. [para. 15].

Counsel:

Mark Covan, James Martin and Scott Millar, for the federal Crown;

Tyler Hodgson, for R. Blois Colpitts;

George MacDonald, Q.C., and Jane O'Neill, for Daniel Potter.

This application was heard on April 14, 2015, at Halifax, N.S., before Coady, J., of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, who delivered the following judgment on April 16, 2015.