R. v. George (D.P.),

• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Judge: Steel, Hamilton and Freedman, JJ.A.
• Neutral Citation: 2006 MBCA 150
• Citation: 2006 MBCA 150,(2006), 208 Man.R.(2d) 300 (CA),[2007] 1 WWR 583,215 CCC (3d) 1,[2006] MJ No 450 (QL),149 CRR (2d) 171,208 Man R (2d) 300,208 Man.R.(2d) 300,(2006), 208 ManR(2d) 300 (CA),[2006] M.J. No 450 (QL),208 ManR(2d) 300
• Date: 18 May 2006
• Court: Court of Appeal (Manitoba)

R. v. George (D.P.) (2006), 208 Man.R.(2d) 300 (CA);

      383 W.A.C. 300

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2006] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. DE.008

Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. Danny Peter George (accused/respondent)

(AR 06-30-06306; 2006 MBCA 150)

Indexed As: R. v. George (D.P.)

Manitoba Court of Appeal

Steel, Hamilton and Freedman, JJ.A.

December 7, 2006.

Summary:

Criminal charges against the accused were judicially stayed by the trial judge under s. 24(1) of the Charter because of unreasonable delay contrary to s. 11(b) of the Charter. The Crown appealed.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 3265

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Speedy trial - Accused's right to - What constitutes "within a reasonable time" - In September 2002 the accused and three others were jointly charged with three counts of robbery with a firearm, two counts of breaking and entering a dwelling house with intent to commit an indictable offence, one count of kidnapping and one count of possession of a firearm without a licence - Thirty-nine months lapsed between the time the charges were laid and the accused's trial began - The trial judge stayed the charges under ss. 11(b) and 24(1) of the Charter on the basis that the overall delay was unreasonable and the accused was sufficiently prejudiced by the delay that a judicial stay of proceedings was warranted - The Crown appealed - The Manitoba Court of Appeal noted that the trial judge erred in the analysis thus requiring the appellate court to do a fresh analysis of the s. 11(b) issue - The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial judge's finding that one key motion was adjourned as a result of the actions of the Crown - The subsequent delay of 13 months was attributable to the Crown and institutional problems and created an unreasonable delay in bringing the matter to trial - While actual prejudice was minimal, prejudice from the length of the delay could still be inferred depending on the overall context - In this case, given the period of 39 months, with particular attention to the 13 month delay attributable to the Crown, the lack of an adequate explanation for that delay, the institutional delays and the nature of the case, the court concluded that the balancing of interests justified the granting of a stay - In the result, the court dismissed the appeal.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Askov, Hussey, Melo and Gugliotta, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1199; 113 N.R. 241; 42 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Morin, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 771; 134 N.R. 321; 53 O.A.C. 241; 71 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Kalanj; R. v. Pion, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1594; 96 N.R. 191, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Castilloux (G.) et al., [2004] O.T.C. 173 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Smith (M.H.), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1120; 102 N.R. 205; 63 Man.R.(2d) 81, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. W.B. (2000), 133 O.A.C. 3; 145 C.C.C.(3d) 498 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].

R. v. Conway, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1659; 96 N.R. 241; 34 O.A.C. 165, refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. Barkman (T.K.) (2004), 190 Man.R.(2d) 75; 335 W.A.C. 75; 2004 MBCA 151, refd to. [para. 58].

R. v. Martin (J.D.), [2000] B.C.T.C. 516; 5 M.V.R.(4th) 223; 2000 BCSC 1043, refd to. [para. 63].

R. v. Bazinet (M.A.) (2002), 173 B.C.A.C. 71; 283 W.A.C. 71; 168 C.C.C.(3d) 344; 2002 BCCA 536, refd to. [para. 63].

R. v. Cameron (K.M.) (2005), 197 Man.R.(2d) 135 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 65].

R. v. Satkunananthan (S.) et al. (2001), 143 O.A.C. 1; 152 C.C.C.(3d) 321 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 74].

R. v. Seegmiller (W.) (2004), 192 O.A.C. 320; 191 C.C.C.(3d) 347 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 76].

R. v. Sharma, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 814; 134 N.R. 368; 53 O.A.C. 288; 71 C.C.C.(3d) 184, refd to. [para. 77].

R. v. Singh, [2004] O.J. No. 2244 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 78].

R. v. Stewart (B.C.) (2000), 139 B.C.A.C. 213; 227 W.A.C. 213; 2000 BCCA 399, refd to. [para. 80].

R. v. Bennett (1991), 46 O.A.C. 99; 3 O.R.(3d) 193; 64 C.C.C.(3d) 449 (C.A.), affd. [1992] 2 S.C.R. 168; 138 N.R. 388; 54 O.A.C. 350; 74 C.C.C.(3d) 384 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 81].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 11(b) [para. 22].

Counsel:

R.G. Garson, for the appellant;

E.J. Roitenberg, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on May 18, 2006, before Steel, Hamilton and Freedman, JJ.A., of the Manitoba Court of Appeal. Steel, J.A., delivered the following judgment on December 7, 2006.