R. v. Doyle, (1976) 10 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 45 (SCC)

• Judge: Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz and de Grandpré, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: March 01, 1976
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1976), 10 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 45 (SCC);[1977] 1 SCR 597;29 CCC (2d) 177;17 APR 45;24 Alta LR (2d) 404;10 Nfld & PEIR 45;[1976] SCJ No 38 (QL);9 NR 285;[1976] ACS no 38;1976 CanLII 11 (SCC);68 DLR (3d) 270

R. v. Doyle (1976), 10 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 45 (SCC);

    17 A.P.R. 45

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Doyle

Indexed As: R. v. Doyle

Supreme Court of Canada

Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Judson, Ritchie, Spence,

Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz and de Grandpré, JJ.

June 29, 1976.

Summary:

This case arose out of an application by an accused for an order for mandamus directed to the Newfoundland Magistrate's Court to return certain property to the accused and to void the conditions of an interim release. The accused claimed that the magistrate lost jurisdiction when he granted the Crown an adjournment in excess of 8 days contrary to s. 465(1) of the Criminal Code. The accused was charged with fraud. An information was laid charging the accused on December 7, 1973. The Crown requested and was granted adjournments on December 11, 1973, January 30, 1974 and April 1, 1974 because of difficulty in extraditing a co-accused in the State of Florida, U.S.A. The adjournments were granted over the objection of the accused. The adjournments were granted before an election was made by the accused with respect to the mode of trial. Furlong, C.J.N., dismissed the application by the accused and held that the adjournments were properly made - see 6 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 479.

On appeal to the Newfoundland Court of Appeal the appeal was dismissed and the judgment of Furlong, C.J.N. was affirmed - see 7 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 274. The Newfoundland Court of Appeal stated that s. 465(1) of the Criminal Code applied only during a preliminary inquiry. The Newfoundland Court of Appeal stated that a preliminary inquiry does not commence until an election was made by an accused as to the mode of trial.

On appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada the appeal was allowed, the judgment of the Newfoundland Court of Appeal was set aside and a writ of mandamus was issued which declared void the recognizance entered into by the accused. The Supreme Court of Canada also ordered the return of deposits to the accused and declared 2 sureties discharged. The Supreme Court of Canada held that the magistrate lost jurisdiction over the accused. The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 465(1) of the Criminal Code applied to the period between arrest and the opportunity for the accused to elect mode of trial - see paragraphs 3 to 16. The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the procedural provisions of the Criminal Code which deal with the treatment of persons after arrest are designed to provide a speedy disposition of the charges.

The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the duties imposed upon a magistrate after arrest are inconsistent with a delay of 8 months between the arrest and the opportunity of the accused to elect mode of trial - see paragraph 15. The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the loss of jurisdiction by the magistrate in such circumstances is to be treated as if the information had never been laid and that such loss of jurisdiction does not preclude the laying of another information in the same jurisdiction charging the same offence - see paragraph 23. The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the magistrate lost jurisdiction over the person of the accused and not over the offence - see paragraph 18.

Criminal Law - Topic 2822

Jurisdiction of Provincial Court judges (magistrates) - Inherent powers of magistrates when acting under the Criminal Code - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the powers of a magistrate acting under the Criminal Code are exhaustive and such a magistrate does not have any inherent powers - See paragraphs 4 to 6.

Criminal Law - Topic 2943

Jurisdiction - Effect of loss of jurisdiction by a magistrate - Charge of fraud - A magistrate lost jurisdiction when he granted the Crown an adjournment for more than eight days contrary to s. 465(1) of the Criminal Code - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that in such circumstances the information is to be treated as if it had never been laid and does not preclude the laying of another information in the same jurisdiction for the same offence - See paragraph 23 - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the magistrate lost jurisdiction over the person of the accused and but not over the offence - See paragraph 18.

Criminal Law - Topic 3404

Compelling appearance, detention and release - Adjournments - Validity of an adjournment granted to the Crown before an election for trial was made by the accused - An information was laid charging the accused with fraud on December 7, 1973 - The Crown requested and was granted adjournments on December 11, 1973, January 30, 1974 and April 1, 1974 because of difficulties with extradition proceedings with respect to a co-accused - The accused was not "put to his election" as required by the Criminal Code - Whether the judge lost jurisdiction when he granted adjournment in excess of eight days contrary to s. 465(1) of the Criminal Code - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the magistrate lost jurisdiction over the accused - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 465(1) applied to the period between arrest and the opportunity to elect mode of trial - See paragraphs 3 to 16.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Keating (1973), 11 C.C.C.(2d) 133, not folld. [para. 6].

R. v. Heminger and Hornigold, [1969] 3 C.C.C. 201, dist. [para. 16].

Trenholm v. Attorney General of Ontario, [1940] S.C.R. 303, folld. [para. 20].

R. v. Dupras Ltd., [1927] 3 D.L.R. 399, refd to. [para. 21].

St. Pierre v. The Queen (1965), 47 C.R. 213, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Peters, 24 C.R.N.S. 214, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Light (1968-69), 5 C.R.N.S. 118, refd to. [para. 21].

Kuhn and The Queen (1975), 19 C.C.C.(2d) 556, folld. [para. 22].

R. v. Born, 6 C.C.C.(2d) 70, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Mack, [1976] 1 W.W.R. 657, folld. [para. 24].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 463 [para. 8]; sect. 464, sect. 484, sect. 501 [para. 11]; sect. 465(1) [para. 3].

Counsel:

Charles E. Flam, Irwin I. Liebman, and Gerald F. O'Brien, for the appellant;

John Byrne, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of Canada at Ottawa, Ontario on March 1, 1976. Judgment was delivered by the Supreme Court of Canada on June 29, 1976.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered by RITCHIE, J.