R. v. Dufault, (1985) 63 A.R. 241 (ProvCt)

Judge:Porter, P.C.J.
Court:Provincial Court (Alberta)
Case Date:May 15, 1985
Jurisdiction:Alberta
Citations:(1985), 63 A.R. 241 (ProvCt)
 
FREE EXCERPT

R. v. Dufault (1985), 63 A.R. 241 (ProvCt)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Dufault

(Docket No. C0340073555A01)

Indexed As: R. v. Dufault

Alberta Provincial Court

Porter, P.C.J.

May 15, 1985.

Summary:

The accused was charged in February 1985 concerning alleged perjurious statements made before the Alberta Labour Relations Board in June 1983. The accused applied under s. 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for a remedy, claiming that his right to be tried within a reasonable time (s. 11(b)) and his right to life, liberty and security of the person (s. 7) had been denied.

The Alberta Provincial Court dismissed the application.

Civil Rights - Topic 3265

Trials - Speedy trial - Accused's right to - "Within a reasonable time" - What constitutes - The Alberta Provincial Court stated that whether an accused was tried within a reasonable time depended upon the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, the accused's assertion of his rights and any prejudice to the accused - See paragraph 10.

Civil Rights - Topic 3265

Trials - Speedy trial - Accused's right to - "Within a reasonable time" - What constitutes - Under s. 11(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, an accused had a right to be tried within a reasonable time - The Alberta Provincial Court held that the relevant time period was the time between the events giving rise to the charge and the date of trial, not the time between the laying of the charge and the trial - See paragraphs 5 to 9.

Civil Rights - Topic 3265

Trials - Speedy trial - Accused's right to - "Within a reasonable time" - What constitutes - The accused was charged in February 1985 concerning alleged perjurous statements made before the Alberta Labour Relations Board in June 1983 - In July 1984, the accused was informed that he might be charged - The proceedings before the Board were not recorded, so there were logistical problems in investigating - Investigation was made more complex because the hearing before the Board involved a sensitive matter between union and government - The Alberta Provincial Court held that the accused's right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was not denied - See paragraphs 5 to 16.

Civil Rights - Topic 8461

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - General - The Alberta Provincial Court stated that the Charter was to be given a generous and liberal interpretation - See paragraph 6.

Civil Rights - Topic 8546

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Life, liberty and security of the person, s. 7 - The accused was charged in February 1985 concerning alleged perjurous statements made before the Alberta Labour Relations Board in June 1983 - In July 1984, the accused was informed that he might be charged - The proceedings before the Board were not recorded, so there were logistical problems in investigating - Investigation was made more complex because the hearing before the Board involved a sensitive matter between union and government - The Alberta Provincial Court held that the accused's right to life, liberty and security of the person was not denied - See paragraph 14.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Mills (1983), 2 C.C.C.(3d) 444 (Ont. H.C.), ref'd to. [para. 3].

R. v. Baker (1983), 10 W.C.B. 10 (B.C.S.C.), ref'd to. [para. 3].

R. v. Big M. Drug Mart Ltd. (1985), 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161; 7 C.R.R. 92 (S.C.C.), ref'd to. [para. 3].

R. v. Young (1984), 3 O.A.C. 254; 13 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (Ont. C.A.), dist. [para. 5].

R. v. Boron (1983), 43 O.R.(2d) 623, disagreed with [para. 6].

Southam Inc. v. Hunter et al., [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291, appld. [para. 6].

R. v. Osborne, [1971] S.C.R. 184; 1 C.C.C.(2d) 482, ref'd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Rourke, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 1021; 16 N.R. 181; 35 C.C.C.(2d) 129, ref'd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Amato, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 418; 42 N.R. 487, ref'd to. [para. 9].

Barker v. Wingo (1972), 407 U.S. 514, appld. [para. 10].

R. v. Dahlem (1982), 25 Sask.R. 10 (Sask. Q.B.), ref'd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Beason, 7 C.C.C.(3d) 20, ref'd to. [para. 14].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 7, sect. 11(b), sect. 24(1).

Counsel:

J. Higgerty, for the Crown;

Brian Beresh, for the accused.

This application was heard before Porter, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment orally on May 15, 1985.

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP