R. v. Domstad (L.M.), (2001) 285 A.R. 105 (QB)

• Judge: Watson, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: February 28, 2001
• Citations: (2001), 285 A.R. 105 (QB);2001 ABQB 179

R. v. Domstad (L.M.) (2001), 285 A.R. 105 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] A.R. TBEd. MR.096

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Lonita May Domstad (applicant)

(Action No. 0103-0020-C6; 2001 ABQB 179)

Indexed As: R. v. Domstad (L.M.)

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Watson, J.

March 12, 2001.

Summary:

The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving while having an excessive blood-alcohol level. At trial, the accused's counsel advised the trial judge that an unanticipated argument based on a breach of s. 8 of the Charter had arisen, stemming from the absence of a Crown witness who had been listed in the Crown's disclosure material (one of the police officers involved). The trial judge granted the Crown an adjournment. The accused applied for certiorari to quash the trial judge's decision to grant an adjournment. He also applied for an order of prohibition against the Provincial Court prohibiting further prosecution of the accused.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application.

Civil Rights - Topic 8584

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Practice - Time for raising Charter issues - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8587.1 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8587.1

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Practice - Notice - General - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "the idea that defence lawyers should provide Dwernychuk [R. v. Dwernychuk (M.K.) (Alta. C.A.)] style notice to the Crown in relation to issues that might arise, as it were, as a bonus in the trial and are not apparent on the disclosure package, is untenable. Apart from whether or not Charter bonuses are different from other bonuses - such as witnesses not showing up, or not remembering key evidence, or turning on the Crown - it is not in my view consistent with the policy in Dwernychuk ... Speaking more broadly, I am not persuaded that, in law, the defence counsel has the obligation to inform Crown counsel in advance of trial of what arguments it might make if the Crown's case turns out at trial to be in some manner deficient" - See paragraphs 28 to 29.

Criminal Law - Topic 4302.1

Procedure - Trial judge - Duties and functions of - Respecting adjournments - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4485 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4485

Procedure - Trial - Adjournments - The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving while having an excessive blood-alcohol level - At trial, the accused's counsel advised the trial judge that an unanticipated argument based on a breach of s. 8 of the Charter had arisen, stemming from the absence of a Crown witness who had been listed in the Crown's disclosure material (one of the police officers involved) - The trial judge granted the Crown an adjournment - The accused applied for certiorari to quash the trial judge's decision to grant an adjournment - He also applied for an order of prohibition against the Provincial Court prohibiting further prosecution of the accused - The accused argued that the Provincial Court judge failed to exercise his discretion judicially in connection with the grant of the adjournment and thereby lost or exceeded his jurisdiction and produced an outcome which denied the accused adjudicative fairness - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application - The court did not find jurisdictional error either generally or because of a denial of natural justice - See paragraphs 49 to 63.

Criminal Law - Topic 7103

Extraordinary remedies - General - Evidence - The accused applied for certiorari to quash the trial judge's decision to grant the Crown an adjournment - He also applied for an order of prohibition against the Provincial Court prohibiting further prosecution of the accused - An issue arose regarding whether the court could consider assertions of fact which were outside the record - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that it should confine its attention to the transcript of the proceedings before the trial judge - See paragraphs 23 to 26 - The court stated that "[i]t may be that a record under scrutiny on a motion for certiorari and prohibition can be supplemented by evidence going to the competence or legality of the court itself, but the positions of the parties must be taken as closed, strictissimi juris" - See paragraph 39.

Criminal Law - Topic 7122

Extraordinary remedies - Certiorari - When available - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4485 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 7152

Extraordinary remedies - Prohibition - When available - The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving while having an excessive blood-alcohol level - At trial, the accused's counsel advised the trial judge that an unanticipated Charter issue had arisen, stemming from the absence of a Crown witness who had been listed in the Crown's disclosure material (one of the police officers involved) - The trial judge granted the Crown an adjournment - The accused applied for certiorari to quash the trial judge's decision to grant an adjournment - He also applied for an order of prohibition against the Provincial Court prohibiting further prosecution of the accused - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application - The court further stated that if it was incorrect and certiorari should have been granted, it would be reticent to then direct prohibition as that would be excessive - The court stated that it would have invoked a form of procedendo to remit the matter to the Provincial Court to resume the trial at the point where it was interrupted - See paragraph 63.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Rahey, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 588; 75 N.R. 81; 78 N.S.R.(2d) 183; 193 A.P.R. 183; 57 C.R.(3d) 289; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 39 D.L.R.(4th) 481; 33 C.R.R. 275, reving. (1984), 63 N.S.R.(2d) 275; 141 A.P.R. 275; 13 C.C.C.(3d) 297; 11 C.R.R. 272 (C.A.), reving. (1983), 61 N.S.R.(2d) 385; 133 A.P.R. 385; 9 C.C.C.(3d) 385 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 4, footnote 1].

R. v. Gallant (C.A.), [1998] 3 S.C.R. 80; 231 N.R. 190; 168 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 126; 517 A.P.R. 126; 128 C.C.C.(3d) 509; 19 C.R.(5th) 302 reving. [1997] Nfld. & P.E.I.R. Uned. 3 (P.E.I.C.A.), refd to. [para. 4, footnote 2].

R. v. MacDougall (P.A.), [1998] 3 S.C.R. 45; 231 N.R. 147; 168 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 83; 517 A.P.R. 83; 19 C.R.(5th) 275; 128 C.C.C.(3d) 483, reving. (1997), 147 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 193; 459 A.P.R. 193; 6 C.R.(5th) 228 (P.E.I.C.A.), refd to. [para. 4, footnote 3].

R. v. Dwernychuk (M.K.) (1992), 135 A.R. 31; 33 W.A.C. 31; 42 M.V.R.(2d) 237; 77 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 12 C.R.R.(2d) 175 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused, [1993] 2 S.C.R. vii; 151 N.R. 400; 141 A.R. 317; 46 W.A.C. 317; 79 C.C.C.(3d) vi; 14 C.R.R.(2d) 192, refd to. [para. 8, footnote 4].

R. v. Jolivet (D.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 751; 254 N.R. 1; 144 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 33 C.R.(5th) 1, reving. (1998), 125 C.C.C.(3d) 210; 20 C.R.(5th) 326 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 12, footnote 5].

Darville v. R. (1956), 25 C.R. 1; 116 C.C.C. 113 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 13, footnote 6].

R. v. Campbell (J.) and Shirose (S.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 565; 237 N.R. 86; 119 O.A.C. 201; 133 C.C.C.(3d) 257; 24 C.R.(5th) 365, affing. (1997), 96 O.A.C. 372; 5 C.R.(5th) 391; 32 O.R.(3d) 181; 115 C.C.C.(3d) 310 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20, footnote 7].

R. v. Noble (S.J.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 874; 210 N.R. 321; 89 B.C.A.C. 1; 142 W.A.C. 1; 114 C.C.C.(3d) 385; [1997] 6 W.W.R. 1; 6 C.R.(5th) 1, affing. (1996), 75 B.C.A.C. 98; 123 W.A.C. 98; 106 C.C.C.(3d) 161; 47 C.R.(4th) 258 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29, footnote 8].

R. v. Cleghorn (L.), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 175; 186 N.R. 49; 85 O.A.C. 129; 41 C.R.(4th) 282; 100 C.C.C.(3d) 393, refd to. [para. 30, footnote 9].

R. v. Lawes (D.A.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 694; 219 N.R. 239; 206 A.R. 311; 156 W.A.C. 311; 119 C.C.C.(3d) 289, affing. (1996), 187 A.R. 321; 127 W.A.C. 321 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30, footnote 10].

R. v. Stone (B.T.), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 290; 239 N.R. 201; 123 B.C.A.C. 1; 201 W.A.C. 1; 134 C.C.C.(3d) 353; 173 D.L.R.(4th) 66, affing. (1997), 86 B.C.A.C. 169; 142 W.A.C. 169; 113 C.C.C.(3d) 158; 6 C.R.(5th) 367 (C.A.), and (1997), 89 B.C.A.C. 139; 145 W.A.C. 139 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30, footnote 11].

R. v. Stone (B.T.) (1997), 87 B.C.A.C. 153; 143 W.A.C. 153; 6 C.R.(5th) 405 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30, footnote 11].

R. v. Darrach (A.S.) (2000), 259 N.R. 336; 137 O.A.C. 91; 148 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 191 D.L.R.(4th) 539; 36 C.R.(5th) 223 (S.C.C.), affing. (1998), 107 O.A.C. 81; 122 C.C.C.(3d) 225; 13 C.R.(5th) 283 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30, footnote 12].

R. v. Scopelliti (1981), 63 C.C.C.(2d) 481 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 30, footnote 13].

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; 122 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 13 C.R.(5th) 241, refd to. [para. 31, footnote 14].

R. v. Smith (C.J.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 291; 222 N.R. 327; 165 N.S.R.(2d) 163; 495 A.P.R. 163; 122 C.C.C.(3d) 27, refd to. [para. 31, footnote 14].

R. v. Skinner (S.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 298; 222 N.R. 228; 165 N.S.R.(2d) 145; 495 A.P.R. 145; 122 C.C.C.(3d) 31, refd to. [para. 31, footnote 14].

R. v. Robart (G.L.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 279; 222 N.R. 321; 165 N.S.R.(2d) 171; 495 A.P.R. 171; 122 C.C.C.(3d) 36, refd to. [para. 31, footnote 14].

R. v. McQuaid (H.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 285; 222 N.R. 236; 165 N.S.R.(2d) 153; 495 A.P.R. 153; 122 C.C.C.(3d) 40, refd to. [para. 31, footnote 14].

R. v. Dixon (S.) (1997), 156 N.S.R.(2d) 81; 461 A.P.R. 81 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31, footnote 14].

R. v. Cole (D.) (1996), 152 N.S.R.(2d) 321; 442 A.P.R. 321 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31, footnote 14].

R. v. Dumont (K.) (2000), 136 O.A.C. 88 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31, footnote 15].

R. v. Collins (R.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276; 56 C.R.(3d) 913; [1987] 3 W.W.R. 699; 13 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1; 28 C.R.R. 122; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 508, reving. [1983] 5 W.W.R. 43; 148 D.L.R.(3d) 40; 5 C.C.C.(3d) 141 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 32, footnote 16].

R. v. Feldman (A.F.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 832; 178 N.R. 140; 53 B.C.A.C. 158; 87 W.A.C. 158; 93 C.C.C.(3d) 575, affing. (1994), 42 B.C.A.C. 31; 67 W.A.C. 31; 91 C.C.C.(3d) 256 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33, footnote 17].

R. v. Paternak (C.D.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 607; 203 N.R. 250; 187 A.R. 395; 127 W.A.C. 395; 110 C.C.C.(3d) 382, reving. (1996), 174 A.R. 129; 102 W.A.C. 129; 101 C.C.C.(3d) 452; 42 C.R.(4th) 302 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33, footnote 18].

R. v. Forsythe, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 268; 32 N.R. 520; 15 C.R.(3d) 280; 19 C.R.(3d) 261; 53 C.C.C.(2d) 225; 112 D.L.R.(3d) 385, affing. (1978), 27 Chitty's L.J. 36 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 41, footnote 19].

R. v. Mills, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 863; 67 N.R. 241; 16 O.A.C. 81; 52 C.R.(3d) 1; 26 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 29 D.L.R.(4th) 161; 21 C.R.R. 76, affing. (1983), 5 O.A.C. 79; 7 C.C.C.(3d) 573; 6 C.R.R. 88; 2 D.L.R.(4th) 576; 43 O.R.(2d) 631 (C.A.), affing. (1983), 2 C.C.C.(3d) 444; 3 C.R.R. 63; 144 D.L.R.(3d) 422; 40 O.R.(2d) 112 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 42, footnote 20].

R. v. Patterson, [1970] S.C.R. 409; 10 C.R.N.S. 55; 72 W.W.R.(N.S.) 35; 2 C.C.C.(2d) 229; 9 D.L.R.(3d) 398, affing. (1969), 67 W.W.R.(N.S.) 483 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 42, footnote 21].

Saunders v. R., [1970] S.C.R. 109; 8 C.R.N.S. 345; 71 W.W.R.(N.S.) 4; [1970] 2 C.C.C. 57; 10 D.L.R.(3d) 638, refd to. [para. 42, footnote 22].

Cohen and Quebec (Attorney General), Re, [1979] S.C.R. 305; 27 N.R. 344; 13 C.R.(3d) 36; 97 D.L.R.(3d) 193, reving. (1976), 34 C.R.N.S. 362; 32 C.C.C.(2d) 446 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 42, footnote 23].

Roussell v. R., [1979] 3 W.W.R. 755; 46 C.C.C.(2d) 452 (Alta. T.D.), affd., [1979] 6 W.W.R. 614; 48 C.C.C.(2d) 159 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 42, footnote 24].

R. v. Nat Bell Liqours Ltd., [1922] 2 A.C. 128; 37 C.C.C. 129; [1922] 2 W.W.R. 30; 65 D.L.R. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 42, footnote 25].

R. v. Paterson (D.) (2000), 132 O.A.C. 266 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 42, footnote 27].

R. v. Kendall; R. v. McCaffery, [1983] 2 W.W.R. 70; 42 A.R. 183; 2 C.C.C.(3d) 224; 23 Alta. L.R.(2d) 189; 18 M.V.R. 252; 144 D.L.R.(3d) 185 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 42, footnote 28].

Harelkin v. University of Regina, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 561; 26 N.R. 364; [1979] 3 W.W.R. 676; 96 D.L.R.(3d) 14, refd to. [para. 42, footnote 29].

Anson v. R., [1983] 3 W.W.R. 336; 35 C.R.(3d) 179; 42 B.C.L.R. 282; 4 C.C.C.(3d) 119; 146 D.L.R.(3d) 661; 4 C.R.R. 337 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 43, footnote 30].

Krakowski v. R. (1983), 4 C.C.C.(3d) 188; 146 D.L.R.(3d) 760; 5 C.R.R. 16; 41 O.R.(2d) 321 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 43, footnote 31].

R. v. Botting (1966), 3 C.C.C. 373 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 44, footnote 32].

R. v. Canadian Pacific Ltd. (1976), 1 A.R. 177; 32 C.C.C.(2d) 14 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 44, footnote 33].

R. v. Goldrick (1974), 17 C.C.C.(2d) 74 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 44, footnote 34].

R. v. Appleby (1974), 10 N.B.R.(2d) 162; 4 A.P.R. 162; 21 C.C.C.(2d) 282 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 44, footnote 35].

R. v. Seaboyer and Gayme, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 577; 128 N.R. 81; 48 O.A.C. 81; 7 C.R.(4th) 117; 6 C.R.R.(2d) 35; 66 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 83 D.L.R.(4th) 193, affing. (1987), 20 O.A.C. 345; 61 O.R.(2d) 290; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 53; 58 C.R.(3d) 289; 35 C.R.R. 300 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 44, footnote 36].

McKinnon v. Alberta (Attorney General) (1991), 119 A.R. 201 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 46, footnote 37].

R. v. Barrette, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 121; 10 N.R. 321; 33 C.R.N.S. 377; 29 C.C.C.(2d) 189; 68 D.L.R.(3d) 260, refd to. [para. 47, footnote 38].

R. v. Olbey, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1008; 30 N.R. 152; 14 C.R.(3d) 44; 50 C.C.C.(2d) 257; 105 D.L.R.(3d) 385, affing. (1977), 38 C.C.C.(3d) 390 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 47, footnote 39].

R. v. Simms (R.) (1990), 83 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 59; 260 A.P.R. 59 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [para. 47, footnote 40].

R. v. Hanlon and McKeil (1987), 64 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 245; 197 A.P.R. 245 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 47, footnote 41].

R. v. A.T. (1991), 126 A.R. 230; 69 C.C.C.(3d) 107 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 47, footnote 42].

R. v. Devries (M.), [1980] A.J. No. 179 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 47, footnote 43].

R. v. Sittampalam (J.) et al., [1996] O.J. No. 2701 (Prov. Div.), refd to. [para. 47, footnote 44].

R. v. Krasnowski (D.) (1996), 117 Man.R.(2d) 9 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 47, footnote 45].

R. v. Tallcree (R.) (1989), 98 A.R. 343 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 47, footnote 46].

R. v. Smith (M.H.), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1120; 102 N.R. 205; 63 Man.R.(2d) 81, reving. (1988), 54 Man.R.(2d) 24; 42 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 48, footnote 47].

R. v. Dubois, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 366; 66 N.R. 289; 41 Man.R.(2d) 1; [1986] 3 W.W.R. 577; 25 C.C.C.(3d) 221; 51 C.R.(3d) 193; 26 D.L.R.(4th) 481; 18 Admin. L.R. 146, refd to. [para. 49, footnote 48].

R. v. Forsythe (1986), 70 A.R. 294 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 50, footnote 49].

R. v. Mills (B.J.), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 668; 248 N.R. 101; 244 A.R. 201; 209 W.A.C. 201; 139 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 28 C.R.(5th) 207; [2000] 2 W.W.R. 180; 75 Alta. L.R.(3d) 1, reving. [1998] 4 W.W.R. 83; 205 A.R. 321; 12 C.R.(5th) 138 (Q.B.), additional reasons [1998] 4 W.W.R. 107; 207 A.R. 161; 12 C.R.(5th) 163 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 59, footnote 50].

R. v. Siemens (F.) (1998), 209 A.R. 375; 160 W.A.C. 375; 122 C.C.C.(3d) 552 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 59, footnote 51].

Counsel:

Brian McGlashan (Haryett and Company), for the applicant;

Troy Couillard (Crown Prosecutor's Office), for the respondent.

This application was heard on February 28, 2001, before Watson, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following reasons for judgment on March 12, 2001.