R. v. Evaglok (C.), 502 W.A.C. 371

• Judge: Vertes, J.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Northwest Territories)
• Case Date: November 16, 2010
• Jurisdiction: Northwest Territories
• Citations: 502 W.A.C. 371

R. v. Evaglok (C.) (2010), 493A.R. 371 (CA);

        502 W.A.C. 371

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2010] A.R. TBEd. NO.124

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Colin Evaglok (appellant)

(A-1-AP-2010-000008; 2010 NWTCA 12)

Indexed As: R. v. Evaglok (C.)

Northwest Territories Court of Appeal

Vertes, J.A.

November 19, 2010.

Summary:

The accused was convicted of assault with a weapon. His appeal to the summary conviction appeal court was dismissed (see 2010 NWTSC 35). The accused sought leave to appeal. The issue was whether the trial judge was entitled to take judicial notice of the court's record in finding that identification of the accused had been proven. The Crown conceded that this was a question of law but argued that the appeal was without merit and did not raise a matter of public importance.

The Northwest Territories Court of Appeal dismissed the application. This was not a matter of public importance. The law on the point was settled. The appeal lacked merit.

Criminal Law - Topic 7602

Summary conviction proceedings - Appeal to a court of appeal - Requirement of leave - The accused was convicted of assault with a weapon - His appeal to the summary conviction appeal court was dismissed - The accused sought leave to appeal - The issue was whether the trial judge was entitled to take judicial notice of the court's record in finding that identification of the accused had been proven - The Crown conceded that this was a question of law - The Northwest Territories Court of Appeal dismissed the application - The summary conviction appeal court judge held that there was considerable circumstantial evidence bearing on the issue of identity which, together with the information from the court's record, and the absence of any contrary evidence, left it open to the trial judge to conclude that identity had been proven - It was settled law that a court was entitled to take judicial notice of its record and process - The identification issue here was case-specific - Therefore, the issue was not a matter of public importance and the appeal lacked merit.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Madsen (L.), [2007] A.R. Uned. 56 (N.W.T.C.A.), refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. Toor (J.S.) (2001), 277 A.R. 350; 242 W.A.C. 350; 155 C.C.C.(3d) 345 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. Chaluk (K.W.) (1998), 237 A.R. 366; 197 W.A.C. 366 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. Nicholson (1984), 52 A.R. 132; 12 C.C.C.(3d) 228 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1984] 1 S.C.R. xi; 56 N.R. 234; 55 A.R. 240, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Tysowski (D.) (2008), 311 Sask.R. 113; 428 W.A.C. 113 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Ouellette (T.W.) (2005), 371 A.R.190; 354 W.A.C. 190 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Hunt (1986), 18 O.A.C. 78 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Levene, [2007] O.J. No. 103 (C.J.), dist. [para. 15].

R. v. Bazinet (D.), [1997] B.C.T.C. Uned. B30 (S.C.), dist. [para. 15].

R. v. Lewis, [1941] 4 D.L.R. 640 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Paterson (W.K.), [2001] B.C.T.C. 171 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Truong (Q.H.), [2008] B.C.T.C. Uned. 775 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 20].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Paciocco, David M., and Stuesser, Lee, The Law of Evidence (5th Ed. 2008), p. 531 [para. 25].

Counsel:

Serge A. Petitpas, for the appellant;

Shannon H. Smallwood, for the respondent.

This application was heard at Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, on November 16, 2010, by Vertes, J.A., of the Northwest Territories Court of Appeal, who filed the following reasons for judgment on November 19, 2010.