R. v. Hedayat (A.G.), (1992) 133 A.R. 303 (QB)

• Judge: Chrumka, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: October 13, 1992
• Citations: (1992), 133 A.R. 303 (QB)

R. v. Hedayat (A.G.) (1992), 133 A.R. 303 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. Adam G. Hedayat (respondent)

(Action No. A-9036101-C; Appeal No. 9101-0360S3)

Indexed As: R. v. Hedayat (A.G.)

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Calgary

Chrumka, J.

October 13, 1992.

Summary:

The accused was charged with speeding contrary to s. 170(1) of the Highway Traffic Act. The accused's vehicle was photographed by a radar camera, indicating a speed of 85 k.p.h. in a 50 k.p.h. zone. The accused had no knowledge of the incident until served with a violation ticket 25 days after the alleged speeding. The accused, at the trial judge's prompting, applied for a stay of proceedings on the ground that the delay constituted an abuse of process.

The Alberta Provincial Court granted a stay. The Crown appealed.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial. The accused failed to discharge his burden of proving an abuse of process occurred.

Criminal Law - Topic 253

Abuse of process - What constitutes - The accused was charged with speeding - His vehicle was photographed by a radar cam­era, indicating a speed of 85 k.p.h. in a 50 k.p.h. zone - The accused had no knowl­edge of the incident until served with a violation ticket 25 days later - The accused, at the trial judge's prompting, applied for a stay of proceedings on the ground that the delay constituted an abuse of process - The trial judge granted the stay - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench set aside the stay - The accused failed to establish a denial of his right to make full answer and defence - It was not established that the Crown acted oppress­ively or vexatiously or that the prosecution was contrary to the principles of funda­mental justice and fair play - The trial judge erred in concluding, on the basis of delay alone, that an abuse of process occurred.

Criminal Law - Topic 259

Abuse of process - Evidence - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that the discretionary power to grant a stay of proceedings for abuse of process should be exercised "only in the clearest of cases", when the community's sense of fair play has been violated - The accused had the burden of proving abuse of process on a balance of probabilities - See paragraphs 26 to 32.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. MacDonald (1990), 108 A.R. 245 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Chow (1991), 118 A.R. 64; 79 Alta. L.R.(2d) 382 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Chow (1991), 120 A.R. 124; 8 W.A.C. 124 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Cutforth (1987), 81 A.R. 213 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Scott (1990), 116 N.R. 361; 43 O.A.C. 277; 61 C.C.C.(3d) 300 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Jewitt, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 128; 61 N.R. 159; [1985] 6 W.W.R. 127; 21 C.C.C.(3d) 7; 20 D.L.R.(4th) 651; 47 C.R.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Vermette, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 985; 84 N.R. 296; 14 Q.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Keyowski, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 657; 83 N.R. 296; 65 Sask.R. 1; 32 C.R.R. 269; 40 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 62 C.R.(3d) 349; [1988] 4 W.W.R. 97, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Mack, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 903; [1989] 1 W.W.R. 577; 90 N.R. 173; 44 C.C.C.(3d) 513; 67 C.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Conway, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1659; 96 N.R. 241; 34 O.A.C. 165; 49 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 70 C.R.(3d) 209, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Keyowski (1986), 49 Sask.R. 64; 28 C.C.C.(3d) 553 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Miles of Music Ltd. and Roch (1989), 31 O.A.C. 380; 48 C.C.C.(3d) 96 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Jans (1990), 108 A.R. 324 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

Kostuch v. Alberta et al. (1991), 121 A.R. 219; 66 C.C.C.(3d) 201 (Q.B.), affd. (1992), 125 A.R. 214; 14 W.A.C. 214; 2 Alta. L.R.(3d) 337 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Rourke, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 1021; 16 N.R. 181, refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Amato, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 418; 42 N.R. 487, refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Young (1984), 3 O.A.C. 254; 13 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 40 C.R.(3d) 289 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. W.K.L., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 1091; [1991] 4 W.W.R. 385; 124 N.R. 146; 64 C.C.C.(3d) 322; 6 C.R.(4th) 1; 4 C.R.R.(2d) 298, refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Sault Ste. Marie (City), [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1299; 21 N.R. 295; 85 D.L.R.(3d) 161; 40 C.C.C.(2d) 353; 3 C.R.(3d) 30; 7 C.E.L.R. 53, refd to. [para. 39].

Statutes Noticed:

Highway Traffic Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. H-7, sect. 170(1), sect. 170(2) [para. 20].

Motor Vehicle Administration Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. M-22, sect. 104 [para. 6].

Provincial Offences Procedure Act, S.A. 1988, c. P-21.5, sect. 4(1) [para. 24]; sect. 30 [para. 29]; sect. 39, sect. 40 [para. 20].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Trotter, Gary T., Judicial Termination of Criminal Proceedings Under the Charter (1989), 31 C.L.Q. 409, pp. 413, 414 [para. 31].

Counsel:

E. Christopher Archer, for the Crown;

Adam G. Hedayat, on his own behalf.

This appeal was heard before Chrumka, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Calgary, who delivered the following judgment on October 13, 1992.