R. v. Grover Holdings Ltd., 2009 SKQB 442

• Judge: Acton, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: November 10, 2009
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2009 SKQB 442;(2009), 347 Sask.R. 21 (QB)

R. v. Grover Holdings Ltd. (2009), 347 Sask.R. 21 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2010] Sask.R. TBEd. JA.007

Grover Holdings Ltd. (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)

(2008 Q.B.C.A. Nos. 34 and 39; 2009 SKQB 442)

Indexed As: R. v. Grover Holdings Ltd.

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

Acton, J.

November 10, 2009.

Summary:

The accused was charged with failing to comply with an order of a municipal inspector to remedy maintenance deficiencies in a property. When the accused failed to appear for the trial, the court proceeded ex parte, found the accused guilty and levied a fine of $3,000 and a surcharge of $1,000. The accused pled guilty to a similar charge respecting another property and was levied a fine of $4,000 and a surcharge of $1,200. The accused appealed from the conviction and from both sentences.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the appeals.

Land Regulation - Topic 5012

Unsightly premises (neglected buildings) - Enforcement - Prosecution - [See Municipal Law - Topic 3985 ].

Municipal Law - Topic 3985

Bylaws - Enforcement or prosecution - Fines - The accused was charged with failing to comply with an order of a municipal inspector to remedy maintenance deficiencies in a property - When the accused failed to appear for the trial, the court proceeded ex parte, found the accused guilty and levied a fine of $3,000 and a surcharge of $1,000 - The accused pled guilty to a similar charge respecting another property and was levied a fine of $4,000 and a surcharge of $1,200 - The accused appealed, asserting that the sentences were demonstrably unfit - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the appeals - The court rejected the accused's argument that the trial judge placed too much weight on the fact that previous fines had been levied on numerous other properties owned by the accused and that each property should be considered separately when assessing fines - The court had to consider the actions or lack thereof by the accused and the failure of earlier and smaller fines to create a deterrent for the accused in its failure to consider the protection of public health and safety - The sentences were not demonstrably unfit and accorded with the sentencing principles as well as previous fines levied against the accused in other but similar situations - See paragraphs 17 to 30.

Practice - Topic 34

Actions - Conduct of - General - Party self-representation - Companies - Queen's Bench Rule 10(2) required that a company be represented in proceedings by a lawyer unless the court ordered otherwise - A company was convicted on a charge of failing to comply with an order of a municipal inspector to remedy maintenance deficiencies in a property and was sentenced accordingly - The company appealed - The company's owner sought permission to represent the company on the appeal - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench allowed the owner to represent the company - The owner had already appeared for the company on numerous occasions before the Provincial Court, the Court of Queen's Bench and the Court of Appeal respecting similar or identical matters in the past - See paragraphs 6 to 11.

Trials - Topic 2024

Conduct of trial - Procedure - Trial - Ex parte - The accused was charged with failing to comply with an order of a municipal inspector to remedy maintenance deficiencies in a property - When the accused failed to appear for the trial, the court proceeded ex parte, found the accused guilty and levied a fine of $3,000 and a surcharge of $1,000 - The accused appealed, requesting a new trial - The notice of appeal stated that the accused's failure to appear was due to "confusion and unavoidable circumstances" - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the appeal - Under s. 20(1)(c)(i) of the Summary Offences Procedure Act, the trial judge had the discretion to proceed in the absence of the accused - The accused had not established any miscarriage of justice as a result of the trial judge proceeding on an ex parte basis - See paragraphs 12 to 16.

Cases Noticed:

Creighton Enterprises Ltd. et al. v. Saskatoon Credit Union Ltd. et al. (1988), 72 Sask.R. 110 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 8].

Shinkaruk Enterprises Ltd. et al. v. Commonwealth Insurance Co. et al. (1994), 120 Sask.R. 148; 68 W.A.C. 148 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Grover Holdings Ltd. (2005), 260 Sask.R. 91; 2005 SKQB 101, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Bird (1988), 66 Sask.R. 79 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Andrie (1988), 63 Sask.R. 198 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Morgan (D.P.) (2002), 222 Sask.R. 306; 2002 SKQB 348, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Stroshein (K.B.) (2001), 203 Sask.R. 183; 240 W.A.C. 183; 153 C.C.C.(3d) 155; 2001 SKCA 20, refd to. [para. 17].

Saskatoon (City) v. Grover Holdings Ltd. (2003), 230 Sask.R. 154; 2003 SKQB 67, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Grover Holdings Ltd. (2008), 322 Sask.R. 276; 2008 SKQB 360, refd to. [para. 29].

Counsel:

Jack Grover, on behalf of the appellant;

Kim M.K. Bodnarchuk, for the Crown.

These appeals were heard by Acton, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Saskatoon, who delivered the following judgment on November 10, 2009.