R. v. Fedossenko (S.), (2014) 584 A.R. 90
| Judge | Picard, Watson and O'Ferrall, JJ.A. |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Alberta) |
| Case Date | May 28, 2014 |
| Citations | (2014), 584 A.R. 90;2014 ABCA 314 |
R. v. Fedossenko (S.) (2014), 584 A.R. 90; 623 W.A.C. 90 (CA)
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite: [2014] A.R. TBEd. OC.002
Her Majesty the Queen (appellant) v. Svyatoslav Fedossenko (respondent)
(1303-0012-A; 2014 ABCA 314)
Indexed As: R. v. Fedossenko (S.)
Alberta Court of Appeal
Picard, Watson and O'Ferrall, JJ.A.
September 25, 2014.
Summary:
The accused was injured in a single vehicle accident and taken to a hospital where he received emergency room treatments. He was charged with impaired driving offences. The investigating police officer obtained an order under s. 487.012(3) of the Criminal Code requiring the hospital to produce the accused's emergency medical records including the records of the analysis done of the accused's blood.
The Alberta Provincial Court concluded that the requirements for production under s. 487.012(3) had not been met and the accused's s. 8 Charter rights had been breached. The court found the accused not guilty. The Crown appealed.
The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the appeal. The Crown applied for leave to appeal.
The Alberta Court of Appeal, per Picard, J.A., granted leave to appeal on the issue of whether the trial judge and the summary conviction appeal judge erred in interpreting s. 487.012(3) as requiring reasonable and probable grounds to believe an offence has been committed as a prerequisite to obtaining a production order.
The Alberta Court of Appeal, O'Ferrall, J.A., dissenting, allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.
Criminal Law - Topic 3012
Special powers - Third party production orders - When available - A summary conviction appeal judge affirmed a trial judge's dismissal of an application for a production order to acquire evidence under s. 487.012(3) of the Criminal Code - Section 487.012(3)(a) provided that the information in support of the grant of production order had to show "... that there are reasonable grounds to believe that ... an offence against this Act or any other Act of Parliament has been or is suspected to have been committed ..." - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that the courts below erred in interpreting s. 487.012(3)(a) to mean that the information in support of the order had to always set out reasonable and probable grounds to believe that an offence had been committed - The courts below read down the section's plain words to effectively remove the option of reasonable suspicion that an offence had been committed and limited it to reasonable grounds that the offence had been committed - The effective removal of the words "or is suspected" was unsupportable under the principle that Parliament did not use words to no purpose - See paragraphs 1 to 8.
Statutes - Topic 2271
Interpretation - Presumption and rules in aid - Against tautology (every word must have a meaning) - [See Criminal Law - Topic 3012 ].
Cases Noticed:
Canadian National Railway Co. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2014), 458 N.R. 150; 2014 SCC 40, refd to. [para. 2].
R. v. Loewen (D.J.), [2011] 2 S.C.R. 167; 415 N.R. 397; 502 A.R. 3; 517 W.A.C. 3; 2011 SCC 21, refd to. [para. 3].
Alberta (Minister of Education) et al. v. Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency et al., [2012] 2 S.C.R. 345; 432 N.R. 134; 2012 SCC 37, refd to. [para. 4].
JTI-Macdonald Corp. et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2007] 2 S.C.R. 610; 364 N.R. 89; 2007 SCC 30, refd to. [para. 4].
R. v. Huynh (Y.T.) (2012), 519 A.R. 378; 539 W.A.C. 378; 2012 ABCA 37, refd to. [para. 5].
R. v. Clarke (C.) (2014), 456 N.R. 43; 316 O.A.C. 384; 2014 SCC 28, refd to. [para. 6].
Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 559; 287 N.R. 248; 166 B.C.A.C. 1; 271 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 6].
R. v. Jackpine (R.), [2006] 1 S.C.R. 554; 347 N.R. 201; 210 O.A.C. 200; 2006 SCC 15, refd to. [para. 6].
R. v. Rodgers (D.) - see R. v. Jackpine (R.).
R. v. Chehil (M.S.), [2013] 3 S.C.R. 220; 448 N.R. 370; 335 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 1060 A.P.R. 1; 2013 SCC 49, refd to. [para. 7].
R. v. Taylor (J.K.) (2014), 460 N.R. 101; 572 A.R. 81; 609 W.A.C. 81; 62 M.V.R.(6th) 1; 2014 SCC 50, refd to. [para. 8].
R. v. Garofoli et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1421; 116 N.R. 241; 43 O.A.C. 1; 36 Q.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 25].
R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276, refd to. [para. 26].
R. v. Grant (D.), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 223; 159 N.R. 161; 35 B.C.A.C. 1; 57 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 44].
R. v. Pearson (E.), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 665; 144 N.R. 243; 52 Q.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 44].
R. v. Royal American Shows Inc., [1975] 6 W.W.R. 571 (Alta. T.D.), refd to. [para. 44].
R. v. Turcotte (1987), 60 Sask.R. 289 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].
Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291, refd to. [para. 46].
R. v. MacKenzie (B.C.), [2013] 3 S.C.R. 250; 448 N.R. 246; 423 Sask.R. 185; 588 W.A.C. 185; 2013 SCC 50, refd to. [para. 49].
R. v. U.P.M., [2010] 1 S.C.R. 253; 399 N.R. 200; 346 Sask.R. 1; 477 W.A.C. 1; 2010 SCC 8, refd to. [para. 51].
R. v. Pohoretsky, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 945; 75 N.R. 1; 47 Man.R.(2d) 295, refd to. [para. 52].
R. v. Dyment, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 417; 89 N.R. 249; 73 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 13; 229 A.P.R. 13, refd to. [para. 52].
R. v. Dersch (W.W.), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 768; 158 N.R. 375; 33 B.C.A.C. 269; 54 W.A.C. 269, refd to. [para. 52].
R. v. Borden (J.R.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 145; 171 N.R. 1; 134 N.S.R.(2d) 321; 383 A.P.R. 321, refd to. [para. 52].
Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Manitoba (Attorney General) et al. (2009), 251 Man.R.(2d) 55; 478 W.A.C. 55; 2009 MBCA 122, refd to. [para. 54].
R. v. Siniscalchi (F.) (2010), 291 B.C.A.C. 14; 492 W.A.C. 14; 2010 BCCA 354, refd to. [para. 55].
R. v. Rao (1984), 4 O.A.C. 162; 46 O.R.(2d) 80 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].
R. v. Cafferata, 2008 YKTC 93, refd to. [para. 55].
R. v. Woodroffe (M.) et al., [2006] O.T.C. 305 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 55].
R. v. Taylor (J.K.) (2013), 561 A.R. 103; 594 W.A.C. 103; 2013 ABCA 342, refd to. [para. 61].
R. v. Araujo (A.) et al., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 992; 262 N.R. 346; 143 B.C.A.C. 257; 235 W.A.C. 257; 2000 SCC 65, refd to. [para. 62].
R. v. Voong (C.) (2013), 347 B.C.A.C. 278; 593 W.A.C. 278; 2013 BCCA 527, refd to. [para. 62].
Statutes Noticed:
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 487.012(3)(a) [para. 1].
Counsel:
J.R. Russell, for the appellant;
D.F. Bullerwell, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard on May 28, 2014, by Picard, Watson and O'Ferrall, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal. The decision of the court was delivered on September 25, 2014, with the following opinions:
Picard and Watson, JJ.A. - see paragraphs 1 to 8;
O'Ferrall, J.A., dissenting - see paragraphs 9 to 64.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Vaillancourt, 2019 ABCA 317
...of appeal hangs on a question of statutory interpretation, it amounts to a question of law reviewed for correctness: R v Fedossenko, 2014 ABCA 314 at para 2, leave to appeal to SCC refused, 36189 (26 March 2015). The second ground of appeal involves a decision whether to exclude evidence un......
-
R. v. Didechko (K.), [2015] A.R. TBEd. OC.063
...s 487.012(3). [225] The question, then, is: On October 23, 2012 what was the standard required by s 487.012 (3)? [226] In R v Fedossenko 2014 ABCA 314, 584 AR 90, leave to appeal to SCC refused, [2014] SCCA No 516 [ Fedossenko ], the Alberta Court of Appeal addressed the proper standard and......
-
R. v. Pazder (P.F.) et al., 2015 ABQB 493
...directly relevant and necessary to their investigation. The standard is to at least the level of reasonable suspicion: R v Fedossenko , 2014 ABCA 314, 584 AR 90. The production order process contains within it the checks and balances that Parliament has seen fit. The more stringent requirem......
-
R v Notay,
...In applying the reasonable suspicion standard as opposed to the reasonable grounds standard under the old s. 487.012(3) (R v Fedossenko, 2014 ABCA 314), Shelley J. concluded that there existed a reasonable suspicion that the accused had alcohol in his body, but no reasonable suspicion that ......
-
R v Vaillancourt, 2019 ABCA 317
...of appeal hangs on a question of statutory interpretation, it amounts to a question of law reviewed for correctness: R v Fedossenko, 2014 ABCA 314 at para 2, leave to appeal to SCC refused, 36189 (26 March 2015). The second ground of appeal involves a decision whether to exclude evidence un......
-
R. v. Didechko (K.), [2015] A.R. TBEd. OC.063
...s 487.012(3). [225] The question, then, is: On October 23, 2012 what was the standard required by s 487.012 (3)? [226] In R v Fedossenko 2014 ABCA 314, 584 AR 90, leave to appeal to SCC refused, [2014] SCCA No 516 [ Fedossenko ], the Alberta Court of Appeal addressed the proper standard and......
-
R. v. Pazder (P.F.) et al., 2015 ABQB 493
...directly relevant and necessary to their investigation. The standard is to at least the level of reasonable suspicion: R v Fedossenko , 2014 ABCA 314, 584 AR 90. The production order process contains within it the checks and balances that Parliament has seen fit. The more stringent requirem......
-
R v Notay,
...In applying the reasonable suspicion standard as opposed to the reasonable grounds standard under the old s. 487.012(3) (R v Fedossenko, 2014 ABCA 314), Shelley J. concluded that there existed a reasonable suspicion that the accused had alcohol in his body, but no reasonable suspicion that ......
-
Searches and Seizures Authorized by Law 2: Other Authority
...on reasonable suspicion (under what was then s 487.012). Courts were divided on the constitutionality of this power. In R v Fedossenko, 2014 ABCA 314, leave refused [2014] SCCA 516, the Alberta Court of Appeal reversed lower court holdings that found the provision to require probable ground......
-
Table of cases
...R v Fearon, 2014 SCC 77 ................28, 34, 37, 62–63, 196, 230–32, 257, 258, 262, 270–72, 304, 305, 311, 326, 350 R v Fedossenko, 2014 ABCA 314 ........................................................................ 193 R v Feeney, [1997] 2 SCR 13, 146 DLR (4th) 609 ........................