R. v. Dill (T.T.), (2005) 375 A.R. 210 (QB)

• Judge: Lee, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: January 26, 2005
• Citations: (2005), 375 A.R. 210 (QB);2005 ABQB 49

R. v. Dill (T.T.) (2005), 375 A.R. 210 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2005] A.R. TBEd. FE.033

Her Majesty the Queen (Crown) v. Thomas Troy Dill (Accused)

(031019292Q1; 2005 ABQB 49)

Indexed As: R. v. Dill (T.T.)

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Lee, J.

January 26, 2005.

Summary:

The accused was charged with offences relating to his alleged possession of a stolen vehicle, in which a loaded sawed-off shotgun, a machete, a knife and ammunition were found. After closing its case, the Crown moved to reopen it to allow at least one of its police witnesses to properly and fully identify the accused. The accused moved for a non-suit based on the Crown's failure to provide any specific identification evidence identifying him as the person that the police witnesses investigated.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the Crown's motion and dismissed the accused's motion.

Criminal Law - Topic 4570

Procedure - Conduct of trial - Re-opening of trial to hear additional evidence - The accused was charged with offences relating to his alleged possession of a stolen vehicle, in which a loaded sawed-off shotgun, a machete, a knife and ammunition were found - After the closing its case, the Crown moved to reopen it to allow at least one of its police witnesses to properly and fully identify the accused - The accused moved for a nonsuit based on the Crown's failure to provide any specific identification evidence identifying the accused as the person that the police witnesses investigated - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the Crown's motion and dismissed the accused's motion - The Crown's inadvertent failure to have one of its police witnesses specifically identify the accused in court, when identity had never been in issue, did not even remotely qualify as real prejudice - Real prejudice affecting the accused's defence was of a substantive nature - Real prejudice was not the loss of an argument for a nonsuit.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Nicholson (1984), 52 A.R. 132; 12 C.C.C.(3d) 228 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied (1984), 56 N.R. 234; 55 A.R. 240; 12 C.C.C.(3d) 228 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Ewanchuk, [1974] 4 W.W.R. 230; 16 C.C.C.(2d) 517 (Alta. C.A.), leave to appeal dismissed, [1976] 2 W.W.R. 576 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. R.M. (2003), 180 O.A.C. 38 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. S.G.G., [1997] 2 S.C.R. 716; 214 N.R. 161; 94 B.C.A.C. 81; 152 W.A.C. 81; 116 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Forsythe (1986), 70 A.R. 294 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Domstad (L.M.) (2001), 285 A.R. 105 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 39].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Ewaschuk, Eugene G., Criminal Pleadings and Practice in Canada (2nd Ed. 1987) (Looseleaf), para. 16:2580 [para. 14].

Salhany, Roger E., Canadian Criminal Procedure (6th Ed. 1994) (Looseleaf Update), paras. 6.3975 to 6.3990 [para. 13].

Counsel:

Dawn Dzuba, for the Crown;

Paul Moreau, for the accused.

These motions were heard on January 24 and 25, 2005, by Lee, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following decision on January 26, 2005.