R. v. Cocelli (H.)

• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Judge: Chapnik, J.
• Citation: (1996), 15 O.T.C. 85 (GD)
• Court: Ontario Court of Justice General Division (Canada)
• Date: 25 September 1996

R. v. Cocelli (H.) (1996), 15 O.T.C. 85 (GD)

MLB headnote and full text

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Hasan Cocelli (applicant)

(No. T0-215544)

Indexed As: R. v. Cocelli (H.)

Ontario Court of Justice

General Division

Chapnik, J.

October 1, 1996.

Summary:

The accused, who was charged with several drug related offences, brought a motion pursuant to rule 6.12 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure for leave to examine Crown counsel. The motion was brought by the defence in aid of its motion for a stay of the proceedings based upon abuse of process by the Crown.

The Ontario Court (General Division) dismissed the motion.

Criminal Law - Topic 4264

Procedure - Indictment - Preferring of indictment - Review of - See paragraph 31.

Criminal Law - Topic 5407

Evidence and witnesses - Witnesses - Crown counsel as witness - See paragraphs 1 to 35.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Harris (M.) (1994), 74 O.A.C. 398; 93 C.C.C.(3d) 478 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Stupp (1982), 70 C.C.C.(2d) 107 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. McConnell (1977), 35 C.C.C.(2d) 435 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

Saskatchewan (Attorney General) v. Boychuk - see R. v. McConnell.

R. v. Moore et al. (1986), 39 Man.R.(2d) 315; 50 C.R.(3d) 243 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1986), 64 N.R. 317; 42 Man.R.(2d) 240 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Arviv (1985), 8 O.A.C. 92; 19 C.C.C.(3d) 397 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1985), 61 N.R. 237; 10 O.A.C. 158 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Ertel (1987), 20 O.A.C. 257; 35 C.C.C.(3d) 398 (Ont. C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1987), 86 N.R. 266; 24 O.A.C. 320; 61 C.R.(3d) xxix (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Sterling (R.), Sterling (L.) and Sterling (T.) (1993), 113 Sask.R. 81; 52 W.A.C. 81; 84 C.C.C.(3d) 65 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

Patrick v. Canada (Attorney General) (1986), 28 C.C.C.(3d) 417 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Durette et al. (1992), 54 O.A.C. 81; 72 C.C.C.(3d) 421 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Kutynec (1992), 52 O.A.C. 59; 70 C.C.C.(3d) 289 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Power (E.), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 601; 165 N.R. 241; 117 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 269; 365 A.P.R. 269; 89 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Stolar (1983), 20 Man.R.(2d) 132; 4 C.C.C.(3d) 333 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

Balderstone v. R. et al. (1983), 23 Man.R.(2d) 125; 8 C.C.C.(3d) 532 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1983), 52 N.R. 72; 27 Man.R.(2d) 240 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Saikaly (1979), 48 C.C.C.(2d) 192 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Smythe, [1971] S.C.R. 680; 3 C.C.C.(2d) 366, refd to. [para. 27].

Counsel:

Joseph DeFilippis, for the respondent on behalf of the Attorney General of Canada;

Moishe Reiter, Q.C., for the applicant/accused.

This motion was heard on September 25, 1996, before Chapnik, J., of the Ontario Court (General Division), who released the following decision on October 1, 1996.