R. v. Dias (G.), 2011 ABCA 6

• Judge: Côté, Picard and Slatter, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: November 05, 2010
• Citations: 2011 ABCA 6;(2011), 502 A.R. 156 (CA);2010 ABCA 382

R. v. Dias (G.) (2011), 502 A.R. 156 (CA);

      517 W.A.C. 156

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2011] A.R. TBEd. DE.057

Her Majesty the Queen (appellant) v. Glen Dias (respondent)

(1003-0035-A; 2010 ABCA 382; 2011 ABCA 6)

Indexed As: R. v. Dias (G.)

Alberta Court of Appeal

Côté, Picard and Slatter, JJ.A.

December 14, 2010 and January 10, 2011.

Summary:

The accused was charged with several offences including dangerous driving, assault with a weapon (motor vehicle) and impaired driving. There were disclosure delays. A Provincial Court judge gave an order for disclosure. The accused sought a stay of proceedings due to the failure to disclose.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at [2010] A.R. Uned. 134, stayed the charges for failure to disclose. The Crown appealed.

The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the stay.

Civil Rights - Topic 8374

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Stay of proceedings - The accused was charged with several offences including dangerous driving, assault with a weapon (motor vehicle) and impaired driving - There were disclosure delays - A Provincial Court judge gave an order for disclosure - The accused sought a stay of proceedings due to the failure to disclose - The Crown admitted that a prosecutor had inadvertently failed for about 4.5 months to pass on to the police a court order for further disclosure but did not admit any oblique or improper motive behind that failure, and the defence called no evidence as to motive - The judge stayed the charges for failure to disclose, concluding that the Crown had "arbitrarily disobeyed" court orders, that this was a conscious choice by the Crown and police, and that their behaviour was "[a]t the best ... immature and disrespectful of the court process ..." and "[a]t the worst, it was high handed." - The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal and set aside the stay - The judge below heard almost no relevant evidence and there was no foundation in the record for his conclusions - Further, the accused was not prejudiced by the delayed disclosure - A remedy under s. 24(1) of the Charter flowed from, and existed only to repair, prejudice - The conduct of the defence at trial was not impaired - Fundamental notions of justice were not contravened and the integrity of the judicial process was not undermined - The prosecutor's oversight or poor judgment here was far from such a situation.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. McNeil (L.), [2009] 1 S.C.R. 66; 383 N.R. 1; 246 O.A.C. 154; 2009 SCC 3, refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. Dixon (S.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 244; 222 N.R. 243; 166 N.S.R.(2d) 241; 498 A.P.R. 241, refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Biscette (S.) (1995), 169 A.R. 81; 97 W.A.C. 81; 99 C.C.C.(3d) 326 (C.A.), affd. [1996] 3 S.C.R. 599; 203 N.R. 244; 187 A.R. 392; 127 W.A.C. 392, refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Chaplin (D.A.) et al., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 727; 178 N.R. 118; 162 A.R. 272; 83 W.A.C. 272, refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Egger (J.H.), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 451; 153 N.R. 272; 141 A.R. 81; 46 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326; 130 N.R. 277; 120 A.R. 161; 8 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Bjelland (J.C.), [2009] 2 S.C.R. 651; 391 N.R. 202; 460 A.R. 230; 462 W.A.C. 230; 2009 SCC 38, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. O'Connor (H.P.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 411; 191 N.R. 1; 68 B.C.A.C. 1; 112 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 30].

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Tobiass et al., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 391; 218 N.R. 81; 118 C.C.C.(3d) 443, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Regan (G.A.), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 297; 282 N.R. 1; 201 N.S.R.(2d) 63; 629 A.P.R. 63; 2002 SCC 12, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Taillefer (B.), [2003] 3 S.C.R. 307; 313 N.R. 1; 233 D.L.R.(4th) 227; 2003 SCC 70, refd to. [para. 32].

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; 29 C.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. La (H.K.) et al., [1997] 2 S.C.R. 680; 213 N.R. 1; 200 A.R. 81; 146 W.A.C. 81; 116 C.C.C.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Vu - see R. v. La (H.K.) et al.

R. v. Stinchcombe, [1995] 1 S.C.R. 754; 178 N.R. 157; 162 A.R. 269; 83 W.A.C. 269; 38 C.R.(4th) 42, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Darwish (W.H.) (2010), 258 O.A.C. 272; 252 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 2010 ONCA 124, leave to appeal denied (2010), 410 N.R. 399 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Lau (W.T.) (2004), 357 A.R. 312; 334 W.A.C. 312; 2004 ABCA 408, refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Wilson (R.) (2008), 240 O.A.C. 59; 2008 ONCA 510, refd to. [para. 44].

Counsel:

T.L. Couillard, for the appellant;

A.S. Millman, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on November 5, 2010, before Côté, Picard and Slatter, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal. The memorandum of judgment was delivered by the court in Edmonton, Alberta, on December 14, 2010. The court released a supplementary memorandum of judgment on January 10, 2011.