R. v. Eby (M.N.), (2007) 415 A.R. 273 (PC)

• Judge: Allen, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: December 22, 2006
• Citations: (2007), 415 A.R. 273 (PC);2007 ABPC 81

R. v. Eby (M.N.) (2007), 415 A.R. 273 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2007] A.R. TBEd. MR.092

Her Majesty The Queen v. Michael Noah Eby (060090602P101001-02; 2007 ABPC 81)

Indexed As: R. v. Eby (M.N.)

Alberta Provincial Court

Allen, P.C.J.

March 19, 2007.

Summary:

The accused was charged with two counts of breach of probation (failing to report and failing to complete his community service), contrary to s. 733.1 of the Criminal Code. It was accepted that the accused did not realize he was on probation, notwithstanding that he signed a copy of the probation order at the time of his 24 month sentence. At issue was whether the Crown proved the required mens rea and whether the accused had a reasonable excuse for noncompliance with the conditions of his probation order.

The Alberta Provincial Court acquitted the accused on both counts. The Crown failed to prove the requisite subjective intent to refuse or fail to comply with the probation order.

Criminal Law - Topic 39

General principles - Mens rea or intention - Lack of knowledge or belief - The accused was charged under s. 733.1 of the Criminal Code with refusing or failing, without reasonable excuse, to comply with the provisions of his probation order - The unsophisticated accused, notwithstanding that he signed his probation order at the time of sentencing, did not read it and was unaware that he was on probation - At issue was whether the Crown proved the required mens rea and whether the accused's failure to read what he signed constituted a reasonable excuse - The Alberta Provincial Court acquitted the accused - Section 733.1 required proof of subjective mens rea, notwithstanding that s. 733.1 did not provide for "wilfully" refusing or failing to comply - An objective or modified objective standard did not apply - Although the accused should have read what he signed and should have known that he was on probation, that was not determinative - The Crown had to prove that the accused "deliberately" or "wilfully" refused or failed to comply with his probation order or was wilfully blind - Where the accused had no knowledge of the probation order, the requisite mens rea was absent.

Criminal Law - Topic 5731

Punishments (sentence) - Probation or probation order - Breach of - [See Criminal Law - Topic 39 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Docherty, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 941; 101 N.R. 161; 78 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 315; 244 A.P.R. 315; 51 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Bremmer (D.D.), [2006] A.R. Uned. 304 (Prov. Ct.), disagreed with [para. 26].

R. v. Leftley, 2003 BCPC 198, disagreed with [para. 28].

R. v. Bender (1976), 30 C.C.C.(2d) 496 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Stuart (1981), 58 C.C.C.(2d) 203 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Neal (1982), 67 C.C.C.(2d) 92 (Ont. Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Daoud (1988), 65 Sask.R. 308 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Hutchinson (K.) (1994), 160 A.R. 58 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Legere (K.R.) (1995), 77 O.A.C. 265; 95 C.C.C.(3d) 555 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Blazevic (M.) (1997), 31 O.T.C. 10 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Manuel (R.M.) (2000), 182 N.S.R.(2d) 193; 563 A.P.R. 193 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Hurlbert (G.D.) (2003), 340 A.R. 192 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Preshaw et al. (1976), 31 C.C.C.(2d) 456 (Ont. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Ludlow (R.J.) (1999), 125 B.C.A.C. 194; 204 W.A.C. 194; 136 C.C.C.(3d) 460 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Lock (1974), 18 C.C.C.(2d) 477 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Hundal (S.), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 867; 149 N.R. 189; 22 B.C.A.C. 241; 38 W.A.C. 241; 79 C.C.C.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Creighton, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 3; 157 N.R. 1; 65 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Finlay, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 103; 156 N.R. 374; 113 Sask.R. 241; 52 W.A.C. 241; 105 D.L.R.(4th) 699; 23 C.R.(4th) 321; 83 C.C.C.(3d) 513; [1993] 7 W.W.R. 513; 17 C.R.R.(2d) 46; 17 C.R.R.(2d) 46, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Sault Ste. Marie (City), [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1299; 21 N.R. 295, refd to. [para. 44].

Reference Re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266; [1986] 1 W.W.R. 481; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 48 C.R.(3d) 289; 24 D.L.R.(4th) 536; 36 M.V.R. 240; 69 B.C.L.R.(2d) 145; 18 C.R.R. 30, refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Wholesale Travel Group Inc. and Chedore, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 154; 130 N.R. 1; 49 O.A.C. 161; 67 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 8 C.R.(4th) 145; 84 D.L.R.(4th) 161; 38 C.P.R.(3d) 451, refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society et al. (No. 2), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 606; 139 N.R. 241; 114 N.S.R.(2d) 91; 313 A.P.R. 91, refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Vaillancourt, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 636; 81 N.R. 115; 10 Q.A.C. 161; 68 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 281; 209 A.P.R. 281; 60 C.R.(3d) 289; 39 C.C.C.(3d) 118, refd to. [para. 63].

R. v. Martineau, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 633; 112 N.R. 83; 109 A.R. 321; 58 C.C.C.(3d) 353, refd to. [para. 65].

R. v. Logan, Logan and Johnson, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 731; 112 N.R. 144; 41 O.A.C. 330; 58 C.C.C.(3d) 391; 79 C.R.(3d) 169; 73 D.L.R.(4th) 40; 50 C.R.R. 152, refd to. [para. 66].

R. v. Finta, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 701; 165 N.R. 1; 70 O.A.C. 241; 88 C.C.C.(3d) 417; 112 D.L.R.(4th) 513; 28 C.R.(4th) 265; 20 C.R.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 66].

R. v. Gossett, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 76; 157 N.R. 195; 57 Q.A.C. 130; 83 C.C.C.(3d) 494; 23 C.R.(4th) 280; 105 D.L.R.(4th) 681; 17 C.R.R.(2d) 77, refd to. [para. 77].

Beaver v. R., [1957] S.C.R. 531, refd to. [para. 84].

R. v. Pappajohn (1980), 32 N.R. 104; 52 C.C.C.(2d) 481 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 84].

R. v. Prue; R. v. Baril, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 547; 26 N.R. 470; 96 D.L.R.(3d) 577; 46 C.C.C.(2d) 257, refd to. [para. 84].

R. v. Théroux (R.), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 5; 151 N.R. 104; 54 Q.A.C. 184, refd to. [para. 84].

R. v. Lucas (J.D.) et al., [1998] 1 S.C.R. 439; 224 N.R. 161; 163 Sask.R. 161; 165 W.A.C. 161; 14 C.R.(5th) 237, refd to. [para. 84].

R. v. Ewanchuk (S.B.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 330; 235 N.R. 323; 232 A.R. 1; 195 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 84].

R. v. Daoust (C.) et al., [2004] 1 S.C.R. 217; 316 N.R. 203, refd to. [para. 84].

R. v. Brownridge (1972), 7 C.C.C.(2d) 417 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 101].

R. v. Santeramo (1976), 32 C.C.C.(2d) 35 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 102].

R. v. Nadeau (1974), 8 N.B.R.(2d) 703; 19 C.C.C.(2d) 199 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 107].

R. v. Ridley (1972), 8 C.C.C.(2d) 174 (Sask. Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 107].

R. v. Phinney (1979), 33 N.S.R.(2d) 266; 57 A.P.R. 266; 49 C.C.C.(2d) 81 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 107].

R. v. Whyte, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 3; 86 N.R. 328, refd to. [para. 110].

R. v. Proudlock, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 525; 24 N.R. 199, refd to. [para. 111].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 733.1(1) [para. 13].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Stuart, Donald, Canadian Criminal Law: A Treatise (2nd Ed. 1987), pp. 123, 124 [para. 59].

Wright, Keith E., Forgetfulness as a Defence, 15 C.R.N.S. 129, generally [para. 33].

Counsel:

S. Burke, for the Crown;

M. Sparks, for the accused.

This case was heard December 22, 2006, at Edmonton, Alberta, before Allen, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on March 19, 2007.