R. v. Duong (T.), (1998) 73 O.T.C. 379 (GD)

• Court: Ontario Court of Justice General Division (Canada)
• Case Date: August 21, 1998
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1998), 73 O.T.C. 379 (GD)

R. v. Duong (T.) (1998), 73 O.T.C. 379 (GD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1998] O.T.C. TBEd. SE.107

In the Matter of an indictment for the First Degree Murder of Chanh Thang Vo and Attempted Murder of Chuong Van Chu and Van Vi Hunyh on December 17, 1995.

And In the Matter of an application to the Chief Justice pursuant to s. 24 of the Charter to Recuse the Trial Judge for Reasonable Apprehension of Bias infringing ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter.

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Tien Duong (applicant/accused)

(Court File No. P459/97)

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

Ontario Court of Justice

General Division

Smith, A.C.J.O.C.

September 8, 1998.

Summary:

At the opening of a murder trial in the Ontario Court (General Division), an accused applied to the trial judge that the trial judge recuse himself on the ground of reasonable apprehension of bias. The appli­cation was made under s. 24 of the Charter. The trial judge dismissed the motion. The accused then applied to the Chief Justice of the General Division of the Ontario Court of Justice to recuse the trial judge for reason­able apprehension of bias.

Smith, A.C.J.O.C., of the Ontario Court (General Division), dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction. The court stated that there "appears to be no statutory provision or rule or case law which supports the applic­ant's position ..." respect­ing juris­diction. See paragraph 41.

Courts - Topic 566

Judges - Powers - To review orders of judge of same court - See paragraphs 10, 41 and 48.

Courts - Topic 679

Judges - Disqualification - Recusal motion, procedure - See paragraphs 10, 41 and 48.

Courts - Topic 5666

Provincial courts - General - Superior courts, status of - See paragraphs 12 to 16.

Cases Noticed:

MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. v. Simpson et al., [1995] 4 S.C.R. 725; 191 N.R. 260; 68 B.C.A.C. 161; 112 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 11].

Wewayakum Indian Band v. Canada, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 322; 92 N.R. 341; 25 F.T.R. 161, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Adamson (1991), 49 O.A.C. 26; 65 C.C.C. (3d) 159 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Litchfield (1993), 161 N.R. 161; 145 A.R. 321; 86 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 18].

Reference re Youth Court (1988), 96 N.B.R.(2d) 11; 243 A.P.R. 11 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

Kourtessis v. Minister of National Revenue et al. (1993), 153 N.R. 1; 27 B.C.A.C. 1; 45 W.A.C. 81; 81 C.C.C.(3d) 286 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Rahey (1987), 33 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 75 N.R. 81; 78 N.S.R.(2d) 183; 193 A.P.R. 183 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. R.D.S. (1997), 218 N.R. 1; 161 N.S.R.(2d) 241; 477 A.P.R. 241 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Curragh Inc. et al., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 537; 209 N.R. 252; 159 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 468 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 26].

Taylor and Western Guard Party v. Cana­dian Human Rights Commission, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 892; 117 N.R. 191, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Mills (1986), 67 N.R. 241; 16 O.A.C. 81; 52 C.R.(3d) 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 44].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Dagenais (1994), 76 O.A.C. 81; 175 N.R. 1; 94 C.C.C.(3d) 289 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 45].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 24 [para. 1].

Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C-43, sect. 14(1) [para. 38].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 674 [para. 11].

Criminal Code Regulations (Can.), Ontario Court of Justice Criminal Proceedings Rules, rule 1.02(1) [para. 34]; rule 1.04(2) [para. 35]; rule 6 [para. 36].

Ontario Court of Justice Criminal Pro­ceedings Rules - see Criminal Code Regulations (Can.).

Criminal Proceedings Rules - See Crimi­nal Code Regulations (Can.).

Authors and Works Noticed:

Ewaschuk, Eugene G., Criminal Pleadings & Practice in Canada (2nd Ed. 1998), vol. 1, para. 1:0035 [para. 11].

Counsel:

Joanne Dunlap and Nancy Krigas for the Crown;

Brian Greenspan for the applicant/accused.

This motion was heard by Smith, A.C.J.O.C., of the Ontario Court (General Division) on August 21, 1998, who delivered the following decision on September 8, 1998.