R. v. Gambler (J.J.), (2002) 328 A.R. 397 (QB)

• Judge: Veit, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: November 14, 2002
• Citations: (2002), 328 A.R. 397 (QB);2002 ABQB 1023

R. v. Gambler (J.J.) (2002), 328 A.R. 397 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2002] A.R. TBEd. NO.133

Joseph Jack Gambler (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)

(Action No. 006916571S1)

Eric Otto Merkle (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)

(Action No. 006916118S1) (2002 ABQB 1023)

Indexed As: R. v. Gambler (J.J.)

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Veit, J.

November 19, 2002.

Summary:

The accused each pled guilty to discharging a firearm at night, contrary to s. 53 of the Wildlife Act. The sentencing judge imposed a $1,500 fine on each accused, together with a $225 victim surcharge levy. The accused appealed from the sentences.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the appeals. The court imposed a $500 fine and a $50 victim surcharge levy on each accused.

Fish and Game - Topic 2707.3

Offences - Sentence, fines and penalties - Discharging a firearm at night - Two accused each pled guilty to discharging a firearm at night, contrary to s. 53 of the Wildlife Act - Section 92 of the Act stated that the maximum sentence for a breach of s. 53 was a fine of $2,500, or one month in jail, or both - The sentencing judge imposed a $1,500 fine on each accused, together with a $225 victim surcharge levy - On appeal, the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the sanctions imposed were unreasonable - The in-default time for the non-payment of a $1,500 fine was 31 days' imprisonment - Therefore, the sentence imposed was equivalent to the maximum sentence of imprisonment, even though the accused had pled guilty and had no criminal records and even though there was no evidence of any danger in the discharge of the firearms in this case - The court imposed a $500 fine (or 10 days' imprisonment in default of payment) and a $50 victim surcharge levy on each accused - The court noted that the sanction of "one month" in jail in s. 92 seemed dangerously imprecise as it could represent 28, 29, 30 or 31 days.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Moskalyk (G.V.) (1991), 121 A.R. 386; 1991 CarswellAlta 527 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Shomouot, [1985] N.W.T.R. 118; [1986] 2 C.N.L.R. 168; 1985 CarswellNWT 8 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Lamouche (K.W.) et al. (2000), 267 A.R. 347 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Badger (W.C.) et al., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 771; 195 N.R. 1; 181 A.R. 321; 116 W.A.C. 321; [1996] 2 C.N.L.R. 77, refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Sutherland, Wilson et al. and Canada (Attorney General), [1980] 2 S.C.R. 451; 35 N.R. 361; 7 Man.R.(2d) 359; [1980] 3 C.N.L.R. 71, refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Tobacco, [1980] 3 C.N.L.R. 81; 4 Sask.R. 380 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Sundown (J.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 393; 236 N.R. 251; 177 Sask.R. 1; 199 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Horseman, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 901; 108 N.R. 1; 108 A.R. 1; 55 C.C.C.(3d) 353, refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. C.A.M., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 500; 194 N.R. 321; 73 B.C.A.C. 81; 120 W.A.C. 81; 105 C.C.C.(3d) 327, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. McDonnell (T.E.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 948; 210 N.R. 241; 196 A.R. 321; 141 W.A.C. 321; 114 C.C.C.(3d) 436, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Shropshire (M.T.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 227; 188 N.R. 284; 65 B.C.A.C. 37; 106 W.A.C. 37; 102 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 129 D.L.R.(4th) 657, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Proulx (J.K.D.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 61; 249 N.R. 201; 142 Man.R.(2d) 161; 212 W.A.C. 161; 140 C.C.C.(3d) 449, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Bernard (A.), [2000] N.S.J. No. 58 (Prov. Ct.), revd. (2001), 191 N.S.R.(2d) 353; 596 A.P.R. 353 (S.C.), revd. (2002), 200 N.S.R.(2d) 352; 627 A.P.R. 352 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied (2002), 301 N.R. 391 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 10].

Counsel:

Bradley W. Enge (Evans Pearson & Company LLP), for the appellants;

T.E. Holland, for the Crown, respondent.

These appeals were heard on November 14, 2002, before Veit, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following memorandum of decision on November 19, 2002.