R. v. Hampton (M.), (1992) 132 N.B.R.(2d) 282 (PC)

• Judge: Brien, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of New Brunswick (Canada)
• Case Date: November 20, 1992
• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Citations: (1992), 132 N.B.R.(2d) 282 (PC)

R. v. Hampton (M.) (1992), 132 N.B.R.(2d) 282 (PC);

    132 R.N.-B.(2e) 282; 337 A.P.R. 282

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

R. v. Margaret Hampton

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

New Brunswick Provincial Court

Brien, P.C.J.

November 20, 1992.

Summary:

The accused was charged under s. 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code with fraud respecting the receipt of 39 cheques from the Department of Income Assistance. The Crown tendered in evidence the cancelled cheques, without giving prior notice of intention under s. 30(7) of the Canada Evi­dence Act. The accused claimed the cheques were inadmissible for lack of notice.

The New Brunswick Provincial Court ruled that the cheques were admissible as real evidence, accordingly, the hearsay rules did not apply and s. 30(7) was also inapplicable.

Evidence - Topic 950

Real or demonstrative evidence - General - The accused was charged under s. 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code with fraud respecting the receipt of 39 cheques from the Department of Income Assistance - The Crown tendered in evidence the cancelled cheques, without giving prior notice of intention under s. 30(7) of the Canada Evidence Act - The New Bruns­wick Provincial Court ruled that the cheques were admissible as real evidence, accordingly, their admissibility was not subject to the hearsay rule and the notice provisions of s. 37 did not apply - The information particularized the fraud as "assistance cheques" and although the cheques were business records, they were also analogous to an item specified in a theft charge and were admissible as proof of their existence.

Evidence - Topic 3246

Documentary evidence - Admission under Evidence Acts - Notice requirements - [See Evidence - Topic 950 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. O'Brien (1978), 1 S.C.R. 591; 16 N.R. 271; 38 C.R.N.S. 325 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 7].

Canada (Procureur général) v. Jarry (1992), 36 Q.A.C. 40; 3 C.R.(4th) 369 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Greenback Investments Ltd. (1972), 10 C.C.C.(2d) 241 (Ont.), refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Mudie (1974), 20 C.C.C.(2d) 262 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Frenette (1978), 23 N.S.R.(2d) 74; 43 A.P.R. 74 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Waltson Properties Ltd. (1978), 80 D.L.R.(3d) 271, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Rowbotham (No. 4) (1978), 2 C.R.(3d) 244 (Ont. G.S.P.), refd to. [para. 11].

Record Vehicles Inc. v. R. (1985), 36 M.V.R. 216 (Ont. Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Cosgrove and Dubois (1975), 22 C.C.C.(2d) 399 (Ont.), refd to. [para. 16].

Statutes Noticed:

Canada Evidence Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-5, sect. 30(7) [para. 1].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 380(1)(a) [para. 1].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Ewart, Documentary Evidence (1979-80), 22 C.L.Q. 189, pp. 191 [para. 10]; 256 to 259 [para. 18].

Phipson on Evidence (11th Ed.), p. 3 [para. 17]; para. 768 [para. 18].

Sopinka, Lederman and Bryant, The Law of Evidence in Canada, pp. 20 [para. 15]; 215 [para. 12].

Counsel:

P. Holland, for the Crown;

D. Rogers, for the accused.

This case was heard at Saint John, N.B., before Brien, P.C.J., of the New Brunswick Provincial Court, who delivered the follow­ing ruling on November 20, 1992.