R. v. Gladue (C.A.), 2002 ABQB 519

• Judge: Veit, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: May 24, 2002
• Citations: 2002 ABQB 519;(2002), 316 A.R. 316 (QB)

R. v. Gladue (C.A.) (2002), 316 A.R. 316 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2002] A.R. TBEd. JN.027

Her Majesty the Queen v. Chester Adam Gladue (accused)

(Action No. 016680936 Q1; 2002 ABQB 519)

Indexed As: R. v. Gladue (C.A.)

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Veit, J.

May 24, 2002.

Summary:

The accused was charged with resisting a police officer engaged in the execution of his duty, a lawful arrest.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench found the accused not guilty of the charge where the police officer was not engaged in a lawful arrest.

Criminal Law - Topic 434

Offences against the administration of law and justice - Disobedience and obstruction - Obstruction and resistance of peace officer - In execution of his duty - An RCMP corporal responded to a report of a stabbing at a hotel - People in the crowd outside the hotel yelled "That's him, that's him" and "He's got a knife" - The corporal ran after a man (the accused) who was moving away from the hotel - The corporal repeatedly yelled "Stop, Police" - Two other officers yelled at the accused to stop and lie down - The accused stopped, but did not willingly lie down - One officer pinned the accused to a storefront and another officer pushed him to the ground - The accused was handcuffed - He did not enter the police car willingly - The accused was charged with resisting a peace officer engaged in the execution of his duty, a lawful arrest - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench found the accused not guilty - The police had no reasonable grounds for the warrantless arrest and the officer was not engaged in a lawful arrest - See paragraphs 27 to 45 - Even if the indictment was amended to charge resistance to a lawful detention, the Crown had not proved that charge beyond a reasonable doubt - The police were not engaged in a lawful detention - See paragraphs 52 to 58.

Criminal Law - Topic 4273

Procedure - Indictment - Amendment - Circumstances prohibiting - The accused was charged with resisting a police officer engaged in the execution of his duty, a lawful arrest - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the Crown was not entitled, after the close of the defence case, to amend the indictment to replace "a lawful arrest" with "a lawful detention" - If the court were to allow an amendment of the indictment at that stage of the proceedings, the accused would have been misled with respect to the legal issues he was facing and he might well have been prejudiced - Further, because the elements of a lawful detention were so different from those of a lawful arrest, the offence of resisting lawful detention was not included in the offence of resisting arrest, and there was even less merit in considering an amendment to the indictment at this stage - See paragraphs 46 to 52.

Criminal Law - Topic 4455

Procedure - Verdicts - Included offences - Inclusion in resisting arrest - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4273 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4736

Procedure - Information or indictment - Charge or count - Indictable offences - Amendment of - After close of trial or on appeal - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4273 ].

Police - Topic 3063

Powers - Arrest and detention - Without warrant - Reasonable and probable grounds - [See Criminal Law - Topic 434 ].

Police - Topic 3086

Powers - Arrest and detention - Detention for investigative purposes - [See Criminal Law - Topic 434 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Storrey, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 241; 105 N.R. 81; 37 O.A.C. 161; 75 C.R.(3d) 1; 53 C.C.C.(3d) 316; 56 D.L.R.(4th) 673, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Latimer (R.W.) (1997), 207 N.R. 215; 152 Sask.R. 1; 140 W.A.C. 1; 112 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Bottrell (1981), 60 C.C.C.(2d) 211 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Yum (S.S.) (2001), 277 A.R. 238; 242 W.A.C. 238 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Brisson (D.M.) (2000), 262 A.R. 376 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Simpson (R.) (1993), 60 O.A.C. 327; 79 C.C.C.(3d) 482 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Golub (D.J.) (1997), 102 O.A.C. 176; 117 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Godoy (V.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 311; 235 N.R. 134; 117 O.A.C. 127; 131 C.C.C.(3d) 129, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Tully (1983), 35 C.R.(3d) 308; 1983 CarswellOnt 95 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Hastings, [1947] 4 D.L.R. 748; 21 M.P.R. 23; 90 C.C.C. 150; 1947 CarswellNB 27 (C.A), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Biron, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 56; 30 C.R.N.S. 109; 4 N.R. 45; 23 C.C.C.(2d) 513; 59 D.L.R.(3d) 409; 1975 CarswellQue 2, dist. [para. 6].

R. v. Klat, [1969] 2 C.C.C. 129; 66 W.W.R. 339; 5 C.R.N.S. 136; 1968 CarswellBC 175 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Grandin (D.T.) (2001), 152 B.C.A.C. 228; 250 W.A.C. 228; 154 C.C.C.(3d) 408; 44 C.R.(5th) 53; 95 B.C.L.R.(3d) 78; 2001 CarswellBC 961 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Acker, [1970] 4 C.C.C. 269; 1 N.S.R.(2d) 572; 9 C.R.N.S. 371; 1970 CarswellNS 22 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Sutherland, 2000 CarswellYukon 50 (Ter. Ct.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Siu (S.W.M.) (1992), 11 B.C.A.C. 207; 22 W.A.C. 207; 71 C.C.C.(3d) 197; 12 C.R.(4th) 356; 1992 CarswellBC 461 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Bayard (1988), 29 B.C.L.R.(2d) 366; 1988 CarswellBC 302 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Cluett (1982), 55 N.S.R.(2d) 6; 114 A.P.R. 6; 3 C.C.C.(3d) 333; 1982 CarswellNS 297 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Preston (1953), 9 W.W.R.(N.S.) 57; 17 C.R. 20; 106 C.C.C. 135; 1953 CarswellBC 120 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

Latour v. R., [1951] S.C.R. 19; [1951] 1 D.L.R. 834; 11 C.R. 1; 98 C.C.C. 258; 1950 CarswellOnt 16, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Antley, [1964] 1 O.R. 545; [1964] 2 C.C.C. 142; 42 C.R. 384; 1963 CarswellOnt 26 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Richter (1970), 73 W.W.R.(N.S.) 140; 1970 CarswellAlta 77 (Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Leno, [1974] 6 W.W.R. 651; 19 C.C.C.(2d) 365; 1974 CarswellBC 222 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Doiron (1972), 4 N.B.R.(2d) 411; 18 C.R.N.S. 127; 1972 CarswellNB 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Mulder (1978), 40 C.C.C.(2d) 1; 1978 CarswellOnt 1191 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. McNeil (R.) (1998), 227 A.R. 316 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Schwalm (B.C.) (2001), 290 A.R. 89 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Pittoors (M.P.) (2000), 279 A.R. 196 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Côté and Vézina, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 2; 64 N.R. 93; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Rinnie, [1970] 3 C.C.C. 218 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

Brown et al. v. Durham Regional Police Force (1998), 116 O.A.C. 126; 43 O.R.(3d) 223 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. T.A.V. (2001), 299 A.R. 96; 266 W.A.C. 96 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Clements, [2002] A.J. No. 577 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Pimentel (J.R.A.) (2000), 145 Man.R.(2d) 295; 218 W.A.C. 295 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Polashek (P.K.) (1999) 118 O.A.C. 312; 45 O.R.(3d) 434; 134 C.C.C.(3d) 187 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Murray, [1999] J.Q. No. 1037 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Elshaw (1988), 70 C.R.(3d) 197; 45 C.R.R. 140 (B.C.C.A.), revd. [1991] 3 S.C.R. 24; 128 N.R. 241; 3 B.C.A.C. 81; 7 W.A.C. 81; 67 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 59 B.C.L.R.(2d) 143, refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Dedman (1985), 60 N.R. 34; 11 O.A.C. 241 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 41].

Counsel:

Charles P. Cobban, for the Crown;

Bradley W. Enge, for the accused.

This matter was heard on May 23 and 24, 2002, by Veit, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following memorandum of decision on May 24, 2002.