R. v. Henkel (J.E.) et al.,

• Judge: Russell, Berger and Ritter, JJ.A.
• Neutral Citation: 2003 ABCA 23
• Citation: 2003 ABCA 23,(2003), 320 A.R. 206 (CA),[2003] 5 WWR 63,13 Alta LR (4th) 54,320 AR 206,172 CCC (3d) 387,[2003] CarswellAlta 62,[2003] AJ No 51 (QL),102 CRR (2d) 333,288 WAC 206,[2003] A.J. No 51 (QL),(2003), 320 AR 206 (CA),320 A.R. 206,288 W.A.C. 206
• Date: 01 November 2002
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)

R. v. Henkel (J.E.) (2003), 320 A.R. 206 (CA);

    288 W.A.C. 206

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] A.R. TBEd. JA.107

Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. Jerry Ernest Henkel, Edmond Michael Guertin and Nolan Timothy Scott (respondents/accused)

(0103-0153-A; 0103-0154-A; 0103-0155-A; 2003 ABCA 23)

Indexed As: R. v. Henkel (J.E.) et al.

Alberta Court of Appeal

Russell, Berger and Ritter, JJ.A.

January 22, 2003.

Summary:

Three accused were charged with impaired driving. They claimed that the Crown breached their s. 7 Charter rights by failing to make timely disclosure.

The Alberta Provincial Court held that the Crown breached the accused's s. 7 Charter rights. The court ordered the Crown to pay costs to the accused. The Crown applied for certiorari to set aside the costs award.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application and awarded costs against the Crown. The Crown appealed.

The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Administrative Law - Topic 5419

Judicial review - Certiorari - Practice - Costs - The trial judge held that the Crown breached the accused's s. 7 Charter rights by failing to make timely disclosure - The trial judge ordered the Crown to pay the accused's costs - The Crown applied for certiorari - The Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application and awarded costs against the Crown - The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the Crown's appeal of the costs order - The court stated that "where an individual has established a breach of his or her Charter rights which results in an award of costs against the Crown, he or she is also entitled to costs of an unsuccessful Crown appeal of that award, regardless of the mechanism utilized by the Crown in advancing that appeal" - The effect of allowing the Crown to avoid costs for its unsuccessful certiorari application would smother the original award and render it nugatory - See paragraphs 28 to 33.

Civil Rights - Topic 3133

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Right of accused to make full answer and defence - The Crown argued that there was no discrete Charter right of disclosure unless the breach of that right impaired an accused's ability to make full answer and defence - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that there was a discrete s. 7 Charter right of disclosure - The court stated that "Though at times it may constitute an element of the right of full answer and defence, it also stands on its own, such that it can form the foundation of an appropriate remedy pursuant to s. 24(1) of the Charter" - See paragraphs 1 to 27.

Civil Rights - Topic 8380.7

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Costs - [See Administrative Law - Topic 5419 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4505

Procedure - Trial - Special duties of Crown - Duty to disclose evidence prior to trial - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3133 ].

Cases Noticed:

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. [paras. 6, 39].

R. v. 974649 Ontario Inc. et al. (2001), 279 N.R. 345; 154 O.A.C. 345; 206 D.L.R.(4th) 444; 159 C.C.C.(3d) 321 (S.C.C.), refd to. [paras. 16, 36].

R. v. Dixon (S.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 244; 222 N.R. 243; 166 N.S.R.(2d) 241; 498 A.P.R. 241; 122 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. La (H.K.) et al., [1997] 2 S.C.R. 680; 213 N.R. 1; 200 A.R. 81; 146 A.R. 81; 116 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 148 D.L.R.(4th) 608, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Carosella (N.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 80; 207 N.R. 321; 98 O.A.C. 81; 112 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 142 D.L.R.(4th) 595, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Grimes (D.W.) (1998), 209 A.R. 360; 160 W.A.C. 360; 59 Alta. L.R.(3d) 210; 122 C.C.C.(3d) 331; 49 C.R.R.(2d) 308 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Biscette (S.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 599; 203 N.R. 392; 187 A.R. 392; 127 W.A.C. 244; 110 C.C.C.(3d) 285, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Antinello (J.J.) (1995), 165 A.R. 122; 89 W.A.C. 122; 97 C.C.C.(3d) 126; 39 C.R.(4th) 99 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Robinson (C.J.) (1999), 250 A.R. 201; 213 W.A.C. 201; 75 Alta. L.R.(3d) 117; 142 C.C.C.(3d) 303 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 26, 36].

R. v. Stapledon (E.C.) (1999), 214 N.B.R.(2d) 57; 547 A.P.R. 57 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Trask, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 304; 79 N.R. 145; 68 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 271; 209 A.P.R. 271; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 92, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Pawlowski (M.) (1993), 61 O.A.C. 276; 12 O.R.(3d) 709 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. 974649 Ontario Inc. et al. (1998), 114 O.A.C. 258; 130 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

Counsel:

J.A. Bowron, for the appellant;

M.T. Duckett, Q.C., for the accused.

This appeal was heard on November 1, 2002, by Russell, Berger and Ritter, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal. On January 22, 2003, the judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered and the following opinions were filed:

Ritter, J.A. (Russell, J.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 34;

Berger, J.A. - see paragraphs 35 to 41.