R. v. Comeau (J.J.), (2014) 417 N.B.R.(2d) 296 (TD)

• Judge: Léger, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick (Canada)
• Case Date: February 03, 2014
• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Citations: (2014), 417 N.B.R.(2d) 296 (TD)

R. v. Comeau (J.J.) (2014), 417 N.B.R.(2d) 296 (TD);

    417 R.N.-B.(2e) 296; 1086 A.P.R. 296

MLB headnote and full text

Sommaire et texte intégral

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2014] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. MR.009

Renvoi temp.: [2014] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. MR.009

Her Majesty the Queen (appellant) v. Joseph Jason Comeau (respondent)

(BCA/4/2013)

Indexed As: R. v. Comeau (J.J.)

Répertorié: R. v. Comeau (J.J.)

New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench

Trial Division

Judicial District of Bathurst

Léger, J.

February 24, 2014.

Summary:

Résumé:

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle on a highway while prohibited from doing so by an order of the Court of Quebec.

The New Brunswick Provincial Court found the accused not guilty as the Quebec order did not inform him of its territorial effect as required by s. 260(1)(c) of the Criminal Code. The Crown appealed.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, dismissed the appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 1390

Offences against person and reputation - Motor vehicles - Driving while disqualified - Elements of offence - The accused was charged in New Brunswick with operating a motor vehicle on a highway while prohibited from doing so by an order of the Court of Quebec (Criminal Code, s. 259(4)) - The trial judge found the accused not guilty as the Quebec order did not inform him of its territorial effect as required by s. 260(1)(c) of the Code - The Crown appealed, asserting that there was no evidence that the accused did not understand the order or that he was mislead by it - The Crown asserted that, given the presumption of regularity, the failure to include "in Canada" in the order as set out in s. 259(4) was immaterial - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, dismissed the appeal - The prohibition order did not fully inform the accused of its territorial scope - The court could not subscribe to the Crown's position that the Quebec court undoubtedly advised the accused that his disqualifications extended to all of Canada - The failure to mention in the order that the prohibition extended to all of Canada was a significant omission - Also, the order recited s. 259(4), but did so accurately by leaving out "in Canada" - In the circumstances, the Crown could not rely on the presumption of regularity as a basis for a conviction.

Evidence - Topic 2501

Special modes of proof - Presumptions - Regularity - Documents (incl. affidavits informations) - [See Criminal Law - Topic 1390 ].

Evidence - Topic 2504

Special modes of proof - Presumptions - Regularity - Notice or knowledge - [See Criminal Law - Topic 1390 ].

Droit criminel - Cote 1390

Vehicules ུ moteur - Conduite durant l'interdiction - Eléments de l'infraction - [Voir Criminal Law - Topic 1390 ].

Preuve - Cote 2501

Modes de preuve spéciaux - Présomptions - Régularité - Documents - [Voir Evidence - Topic 2501 ].

Preuve - Cote 2504

Mode de preuve spéciaux - Présomptions - Régularité - Avis ou connaissance - [Voir Evidence - Topic 2504 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Lord (E.K.) (2013), 408 N.B.R.(2d) 220; 1058 A.P.R. 220 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Molina (M.) (2008), 234 O.A.C. 384; 90 O.R.(3d) 223 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Crawley (K.A.) (2009), 291 N.S.R.(2d) 3; 922 A.P.R. 3; 2009 NSPC 72, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Ranni (D.) (2011), 303 N.S.R.(2d) 298; 957 A.P.R. 298; 2011 NSSC 209, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Fernandes (M.) (2013), 306 O.A.C. 337; 115 O.R.(3d) 746; 2013 ONCA 436, refd to. [para. 16].

Counsel:

Avocats:

Marc A. Bourgeois, for the appellant;

Euclide LeBouthillier, Q.C., for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on February 3, 2014, by Léger, J., of the New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, Judicial District of Bathurst, who delivered the following judgment on February 24, 2014.