R. v. Delfing, (1982) 17 Man.R.(2d) 343 (CoCt)

• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Canada)
• Case Date: September 17, 1982
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (1982), 17 Man.R.(2d) 343 (CoCt)

R. v. Delfing (1982), 17 Man.R.(2d) 343 (CoCt)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Delfing

Indexed As: R. v. Delfing

Manitoba County Court of Minnedosa

Ferg, C.C.J.

September 17, 1982.

Summary:

The accused was charged with possession of a radar detector in a motor vehicle, contrary to s. 185(3) of the Highway Traffic Act. Before the accused pleaded, the trial judge allowed a motion to quash the information, because it did not disclose an offence known to law. The Crown appealed.

The Manitoba County Court allowed the appeal and referred the matter back for a hearing on the merits.

Criminal Law - Topic 7265

Summary conviction proceedings - Informations - Whether accused was prejudiced by defective information - The Manitoba County Court referred to the rule whereby the accused must be reasonably informed of the transaction alleged against him so that he can give a full defence and have a fair trial - See paragraphs 15 to 18.

Criminal Law - Topic 7285

Summary conviction proceedings - Informations - Form and content including sufficiency of charge - The accused was charged that he did "possess a radar detector in a motor vehicle" - Under s. 185(3) of the Highway Traffic Act it was an offence to possess a device for detecting radar speed determination equipment, in a motor vehicle - The Manitoba County Court held that the brief description in the information was sufficient to describe the offence.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Steele, [1952] O.W.N. 181; 102 C.C.C. 273; 14 C.R. 285, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Behlen-Wickes Company (1980), 4 Man.R.(2d) 119, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Cote, [1977] 2 W.W.R. 174; 13 N.R. 271 (S.C.C.), folld. [para. 15].

R. v. Sault Ste. Marie, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1299; 21 N.R. 295; 3 C.R.(3d) 30; 40 C.C.C.(2d) 353; 85 D.L.R.(3d) 161, folld. [para. 16].

Statutes Noticed:

Highway Traffic Act, R.S.M. 1970, c. H-60; C.C.S.M., c. H-60, sect. 185(3) [para. 1]; sect. 223(4) [para. 7].

Counsel:

G. Bowering, for appellant;

R. Pollack, for respondent.

This case was heard by FERG, C.C.J., of the Manitoba County Court, who on September 17, 1982, delivered the following decision.