R. v. Dubois, (1982) 18 Man.R.(2d) 90 (CA)

• Judge: Monnin, Matas and O'Sullivan, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
• Case Date: June 16, 1982
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (1982), 18 Man.R.(2d) 90 (CA)

R. v. Dubois (1982), 18 Man.R.(2d) 90 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Dubois

(Suit No. 93/82)

Indexed As: R. v. Dubois

Manitoba Court of Appeal

Monnin, Matas and O'Sullivan, JJ.A.

October 19, 1982.

Summary:

The accused was charged with armed robbery and using a firearm while committing an indictable offence. After the preliminary the accused was discharged because the Crown did not prove the accused's identification beyond a reasonable doubt. The Crown applied for certiorari, submitting that the Provincial Court applied the wrong standard of proof and therefore acted in excess of jurisdiction.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported 15 Man.R.(2d) 100; 27 C.R.(3d) 173, dismissed the application. The Crown appealed.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the Provincial Court. O'Sullivan, J.A., dissenting in paragraphs 57 to 141, would have dismissed the appeal because the Provincial Court's error did not oust jurisdiction.

Criminal Law - Topic 3530

Preliminary inquiry - Jurisdiction - Loss of jurisdiction - The Manitoba Court of Appeal discussed when a trial judge at a preliminary loses jurisdiction and stated that jurisdiction would be lost if a mandatory provision of the Criminal Code of Canada was not observed - See paragraphs 46 and 47.

Criminal Law - Topic 3535

Preliminary inquiry - Jurisdiction - Excess of jurisdiction - The Manitoba Court of Appeal discussed when an error of law goes to jurisdiction - The court held that the Provincial Court acted in excess of jurisdiction where it applied the wrong standard of proof contrary to s. 475 of the Criminal Code of Canada - See paragraphs 48 to 52.

Criminal Law - Topic 3602

Preliminary inquiry - Adjudication and review - Evidence required for committal or discharge - The Manitoba Provincial Court discharged an accused after a preliminary inquiry because the accused's identification was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt - The Manitoba Court of Appeal held the judge erred in applying the wrong standard of proof when assessing the evidence in accordance with s. 475 of the Criminal Code of Canada - See paragraphs 14 to 16.

Criminal Law - Topic 3603

Preliminary inquiry - Adjudication and review - Duties of trial judge - The Manitoba Court of Appeal stated the duty of a trial judge presiding at a preliminary inquiry - See paragraph 44.

Criminal Law - Topic 3605

Preliminary inquiry - Adjudication and review - Judicial review of committal order - General - The Manitoba Court of Appeal stated that the committal for trial or discharge of an accused is not appealable and can only be quashed by certiorari or a motion to quash - The court further discussed the use of certiorari to quash a committal - See paragraphs 25 to 45, 52.

Criminal Law - Topic 3613

Preliminary inquiry - Adjudication and review - Judicial review of discharge order - The Manitoba Court of Appeal held that certiorari is a proper remedy where there is an excess or want of jurisdiction or error of law on the face of the record - The court granted certiorari to quash a decision discharging an accused after a preliminary because the Crown did not prove the accused's identification beyond a reasonable doubt - The court held that there was an error of law on the face of the record - See paragraphs 6 and 11 to 25.

Criminal Law - Topic 3613

Preliminary inquiry - Adjudication and review - Judicial review of discharge order - An accused was discharged after a preliminary inquiry because the Crown did not prove the accused's identification beyond a reasonable doubt - The Crown applied for certiorari, but the Queen's Bench denied the application because the Crown had other remedies, namely, laying a new information or preferring a direct indictment with the Attorney General's consent - The Manitoba Court of Appeal held that certiorari was the proper remedy in the circumstances - See paragraphs 26 and 53 to 55.

Criminal Law - Topic 3613

Preliminary inquiry - Adjudication and review - Judicial review of discharge order - The Manitoba Court of Appeal stated that the committal for trial or discharge of an accused is not appealable and can only be quashed by certiorari or a motion to quash - See paragraph 25.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Nat Bell Liquors Limited, [1922] 2 W.W.R. 30; 37 C.C.C. 129; [1922] A.C. 128; 65 D.L.R. 1, appld. [paras. 8, 67, 84].

Re Mitchell and Maynes and The Queen (1976), 31 C.C.C.(2d) 344, consd. [paras. 11, 64].

R. v. Patterson, [1970] S.C.R. 409; 72 W.W.R.(N.S.) 35; 2 C.C.C.(2d) 227; 9 D.L.R.(3d); 10 C.R.N.S. 55, consd. [paras. 11, 43, 62].

Attorney-General of the Province of Quebec v. Cohen et al., [1979] 2 S.C.R. 305; 27 N.R. 344; 46 C.C.C.(2d) 473; 97 D.L.R.(3d) 193; 13 C.R.(3d) 36, consd. [paras. 11, 46, 89].

Re Martin, Simard and Desjardins and The Queen (1977), 87 D.L.R.(3d) 634; 41 C.C.C.(2d) 308, consd. [paras. 11, 65].

Shumiatcher v. A.G. of Saskatchewan et al., [1964] 3 C.C.C. 359; 43 C.R. 146; 47 W.W.R.(N.S.) 57, consd. [paras. 11, 38, 64, 72].

Re Shumiatcher (1961), 131 C.C.C. 112, consd. [para. 11].

Anisminic, Ltd. v. The Foreign Compensation Commission and Another, [1969] 1 All E.R. 308, consd. [paras. 11 and 105].

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 796, [1970] S.C.R. 425, consd. [para. 11].

R. v. Forsythe, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 268; 53 C.C.C.(2d) 225; 32 N.R. 520; 112 D.L.R.(3d) 385, consd. [paras. 11, 45, 94].

Re Skogman and the Queen (1982), 66 C.C.C.(2d) 14; [1982] 3 W.W.R. 367, consd. [paras. 11, 46, 98].

Stillo v. R. (1981), 22 C.R.(3d) 224 (Ont. C.A.), consd. [paras. 11, 48, 98].

Re Poirier and The Queen, [1981] Que. C.A. 227; 62 C.C.C.(2d) 452, consd. [paras. 38, 98].

Rex v. Northumberland Compensation Appeal Tribunal; Ex Parte Shaw, [1952] 1 K.B. 338; [1952] 1 T.L.R. 161; [1952] 1 All E.R. 122, consd. [paras. 11, 38, 69].

United States of America v. Sheppard (1976), 30 C.C.C.(2d) 424; 70 D.L.R.(3d) 136; 34 C.R.N.S. 207, appld. [paras. 44, 80].

R. v. Botting (1966), 48 C.R. 73; 56 D.L.R.(2d) 25, refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Clow; R. v. Birkholz, [1978] 3 W.W.R. 479; (Man. C.A.); [1978] 1 W.W.R. 84 (Man. Q.B.), consd. [para. 49].

Re Harelkin and University of Regina (1979), 26 N.R. 364; 96 D.L.R.(3d) 14 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. Davy, [1978] 4 W.W.R. 283, refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. Norgren (1975), 27 C.C.C.(2d) 488 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [paras. 11, 64].

R. v. Schellenberg (1958), 26 W.W.R.(N.S.) 374, refd to. [para. 70].

Reg. v. Roscommon, JJ., [1894] I.R. 158, refd to. [para. 71].

R. (Hastings) v. Justices of Co. Galway, [1914] I.L.T. 185, refd to. [para. 71].

Attorney-General v. Car Haulaways (N.Z.) Ltd., [1974] 2 N.Z.L.R. 331 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 107].

Pearlman v. Keepers and Governors of Harrow School, [1979] Q.B. 56, consd. [para. 108].

South East Asia Fire Bricks Sdn. Bhd. v. Non-Metallic Mineral Products Manufacturing Employees Union and Others, [1981] A.C. 363, consd. [para. 111].

Kannan v. Menteri Burah Dan Tenaga Rakyat, [1974] 1 M.L.J. 90, consd. [para. 115].

In re A Company, [1981] A.C. 374, consd. [para. 117].

Rex v. Nelson (1908), 18 O.L.R. 484; 15 C.C.C. 10, refd to. [para. 131].

R. v. Paulowich, [1940] 1 W.W.R. 537, refd to. [para. 135].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 475 [para. 14]; sect. 505, sect. 507 [para. 24].

Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. N-1 [para. 49].

Rules of Court (Man. Q.B.), rule 95(1), rule 556, rule 557, rule 558 [para. 28].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Bailey, Cross and Garner, Cases and Materials in Administrative Law (London, 1977), p. 213 [para. 107].

Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Ed.), vol. 1, para. 160 [para. 131].

Keith, K.G., Comment on Attorney-General v. Car Haulaways (N.A.) Ltd., [1974] 2 N.Z.L.R. 331 (C.A.) [para. 107].

Letourneau, The Prerogative Writs in Canadian Criminal Law and Procedure (Toronto, 1976), p. 115ff [para. 132].

Reid and David, Administrative Law and Practice (2nd Ed.), pp. 206, 207 [para. 50].

Counsel:

S.J. Whitley, for the appellant;

M.T. Tracey, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on June 16, 1982, by MONNIN, MATAS and O'SULLIVAN, JJ.A., of the Manitoba Court of Appeal. On October 19, 1982, the decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered and the following opinions were filed:

MONNIN, J.A. - See paragraphs 1 to 30;

MATAS, J.A. - See paragraphs 31 to 56;

O'SULLIVAN, J.A., dissenting - See paragraphs 57 to 141.