R. v. Green (M.), (2014) 309 Man.R.(2d) 69 (PC)

• Judge: Krahn, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Manitoba (Canada)
• Case Date: August 29, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (2014), 309 Man.R.(2d) 69 (PC);2014 MBPC 42

R. v. Green (M.) (2014), 309 Man.R.(2d) 69 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. OC.003

Her Majesty The Queen v. Martin Green

(2014 MBPC 42)

Indexed As: R. v. Green (M.)

Manitoba Provincial Court

Krahn, P.C.J.

August 29, 2014.

Summary:

The accused was a student at the University of Winnipeg. The University issued notices under the Petty Trespass Act barring the accused from the University because of non-academic misconduct. The accused was later found on campus. He was charged with trespass for contravening the barring order. He was also charged with mischief for interfering, interrupting or obstructing the operation of the University by requiring them to hire additional security staff and lock certain doors to the main university building. The accused argued that the barring notice was invalid because it was imposed for a malicious purpose. He argued that he was not guilty of mischief because his attendance at the university was peaceful, and he was not causing a disturbance when he was apprehended.

The Manitoba Provincial Court found the accused guilty of trespass and not guilty of mischief.

Civil Rights - Topic 1863

Freedom of speech or expression - Denial of - What constitutes - Green was a student at the University of Winnipeg - The University issued notices under the Petty Trespass Act barring Green from the University because of non-academic misconduct - Green was later found talking to students on campus - He was charged with trespass and mischief - Green argued that his right to freedom of speech under ss. 2 and 7 of the Charter was breached, because he was only trying to find witnesses to a particular incident that was the subject of a complaint against him - The Manitoba Provincial Court held that Green failed to establish a Charter breach - The University acted reasonably to protect faculty and students, and to protect a safe learning environment - See paragraphs 126 to 130.

Criminal Law - Topic 253

General principles - Abuse of process - What constitutes - Green was a student at the University of Winnipeg - The University issued notices under the Petty Trespass Act barring Green from the University because of non-academic misconduct - Green was charged with mischief after he breached the barring notice - The Crown argued that Green interfered, interrupted or obstructed the operation of the University by requiring them to hire additional security staff and lock certain doors to the main university building - Green asserted that his attendance at the University was peaceful, and he was not causing a disturbance when he was apprehended - He asserted that it was an abuse of process to charge him with a criminal offence, and that the charge was laid for the purpose of keeping him in jail and saving money on security costs - The Manitoba Provincial Court stated "I am satisfied there was not an abuse of process because the charge of mischief was laid and prosecuted." - The purpose of pursuing the charge of mischief was to keep Green off campus because students and staff were afraid of him - There was no evidence of a malicious or improper purpose in pursuing the charge - See paragraphs 120 to 125.

Criminal Law - Topic 2247

Wilful acts respecting property - Mischief - Elements - Obstruction or interference with use, enjoyment or operation of property - [See Criminal Law - Topic 2249 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 2249

Wilful acts respecting property - Mischief - Mens rea - Green was a student at the University of Winnipeg - The University issued notices under the Petty Trespass Act barring Green from the University because of non-academic misconduct - Green was charged with mischief after he breached the barring notice - The Crown argued that Green interfered, interrupted or obstructed the operation of the University by requiring them to lock certain doors to the main university building, and by requiring additional security staff to be hired - Green asserted that his attendance at the University was peaceful, and he was not causing a disturbance when he was apprehended - The Manitoba Provincial Court found Green not guilty, stating "I find that while the actus reus of the offence of mischief is made out in this case, the mens rea is not. Not every breach of the Petty Trespass Act, even intentional repeated breaches of that Act necessarily result in a criminal mischief charge. ...  the mental element of the offence of mischief requires wilful, knowledgeable interference with the operation of the university. Given the evidence I accept from Mr. Green, I do not find that it was predictable to him, and he was not reckless as to the consequence of added security and locked doors." - See paragraphs 107 to 119.

Education - Topic 4510.1

Universities - Students - Non-academic misconduct - [See Trials - Topic 3055 ].

Education - Topic 5228

Students - Discipline, dismissal and exclusion - When justified - [See Trials - Topic 3055 ].

Education - Topic 5233

Students - Discipline, dismissal and exclusion - Duty of fairness - Green was a student at the University of Winnipeg - Several complaints were made about Green's disruptive and confrontational behaviour - On December 6, the Registrar asked Green to meet with him to discuss the complaints - Green refused to meet until he had full written disclosure of all the allegations - On December 15, the Registrar gave Green a summary of the complaints - Green was not satisfied with the summary - He demanded "a documented list of detailed complaints, including times and dates, and signatures ..." - The Registrar continued to insist on meeting with Green to hear his side of the story - On January 10, the Registrar went to Green's classroom and advised him that he was suspended from classes until his behaviour had been addressed - Green made a throat slashing gesture to someone in the classroom before he left - As a result, the Registrar issued a notice barring Green from the University - Subsequently, Green was charged with trespass under the Petty Trespass Act - Green argued that he was entitled to detailed, written information about the allegations against him before he would answer them - The Manitoba Provincial Court held that a University administering a non-academic misconduct policy was not required to provide the same level of disclosure that was seen in criminal courts - By giving Green a summary of the allegations in writing, and the opportunity to be heard, the University extended adequate procedural guarantees to Green - See paragraphs 65 to 69.

Trials - Topic 265

Prosecution - General - Abuse of process - [See Criminal Law - Topic 253 ].

Trials - Topic 3055

Offences - Trespass - Notice - Green was a student at the University of Winnipeg - Several complaints were made about Green's disruptive and confrontational behaviour - Green refused to discuss the complaints with the Registrar - The Registrar went to Green's classroom and advised him that he was being suspended until the complaints were addressed - Before leaving, Green made a throat slashing gesture to someone in the classroom - As a result, the Registrar issued a notice barring Green from the University - One year later, Green called a professor at his home - The professor told Green to contact his lawyer and then hung up the phone - A few minutes later, Green attended at the professor's residence, allegedly because he was attempting to serve notice of a legal action against the professor - The professor's wife answered the door and told Green to leave - Green allegedly pushed on the door while the wife tried to close it - The police were called - The University issued a second barring notice - Subsequently, Green was charged with trespass under the Petty Trespass Act - The Manitoba Provincial Court found Green guilty - The University was not acting maliciously or arbitrarily when they issued either barring notice - They were acting out of a legitimate and real desire to create an environment where students and faculty felt safe - In those circumstances, the barring notices were legal and binding - See paragraphs 26 to 106.

Trials - Topic 3056

Offences - Trespass - Publicly owned property - [See Trials - Topic 3055 ].

Cases Noticed:

Harrison v. Carswell, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 200; 5 N.R. 523, refd to. [para. 23].

Doré v. Barreau du Québec, [2012] 1 S.C.R. 395; 428 N.R. 146; 2012 SCC 12, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. S.A. (2012), 540 A.R. 371; 2012 ABQB 311, affd. (2014), 575 A.R. 230; 612 W.A.C. 230; 2014 ABCA 191, refd to. [paras. 65, 129].

R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326; 130 N.R. 277; 120 A.R. 161; 8 W.A.C. 161; 68 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 67].

R. v. Tan (A.L.) (1992), 15 B.C.A.C. 231; 27 W.A.C. 231; 1992 CarswellBC 758 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 110].

R. v. Maddeaux (L.) (1997), 98 O.A.C. 358; 1997 CarswellOnt 1119 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 110].

R. v. Drapeau (G.) (1995), 66 Q.A.C. 280 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 111].

R. v. Wendel (1966), 50 C.R. 37 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 114].

R. v. Anderson (F.) (2014), 458 N.R. 1; 350 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 289; 1088 A.P.R. 289; 2014 SCC 41, refd to. [para. 121].

R. v. Whatcott (W.) (2002), 225 Sask.R. 205; 2002 SKQB 399, dist. [para. 130].

R. v. Whatcott (W.) (2011), 514 A.R. 154; 2011 ABPC 336, dist. [para. 130].

Counsel:

Anostin Grieves, for the Crown;

M. Green, self-represented.

This matter was heard before Krahn, P.C.J., of the Manitoba Provincial Court, who delivered the following reasons for decision on August 29, 2014.