R. v. Hudson (R.W.), 2007 SKQB 23

• Judge: Gabrielson, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: January 15, 2007
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2007 SKQB 23;(2007), 292 Sask.R. 180 (QB)

R. v. Hudson (R.W.) (2007), 292 Sask.R. 180 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2007] Sask.R. TBEd. MR.018

Ronald Wayne Hudson (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)

(2006 Q.B.A. No. 10; 2007 SKQB 23)

Indexed As: R. v. Hudson (R.W.)

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Battleford

Gabrielson, J.

January 15, 2007.

Summary:

The accused was charged with two counts of breach of a recognizance (counts 1 and 6), two counts of loitering (counts 2 and 3), criminal harassment (count 4) and intimidation (count 5).

The Saskatchewan Provincial Court, in a decision not reported in this series of reports, convicted the accused of counts 1 and 2, acquitted him of count 3 and committed him to trial on counts 4 to 6. The court sentenced the accused to time served with respect to his conviction on count 1 and a suspended sentence and nine months' probation in respect of count 2. The accused appealed against both conviction and sentence.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench allowed the appeal. The court directed that the accused's conviction on count 2 be set aside and an acquittal be entered. The court ordered that the accused's conviction on count 1 be set aside and a new trial be held in respect thereto unless the Crown elected not to do so.

Criminal Law - Topic 748

Sexual offences, public morals and disorderly conduct - Disorderly conduct - Loitering - The accused entered a Saskatchewan Government Insurance (SGI) office for the purpose of cancelling his motor vehicle insurance and registration - He was originally attended by Pederson - She advised him that he would receive a refund check in the mail - The accused objected - He subsequently left - When he returned, another clerk attended to him because Pederson was uncomfortable - Given his prior encounters with the office, a policy had been put in place that the owner of the premises (Spenrath) should be called if the accused came into the office - Spenrath dealt with the accused - The whole process took 15 to 20 minutes instead of the usual three to five minutes - When the accused left, Spenrath contacted the RCMP because he feared that the accused would operate his motor vehicle - The accused was convicted of breach of a recognizance and loitering - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench set aside the convictions - The trial judge found that while the accused was in a commercial dwelling, he did not obstruct the persons within - Accordingly, an essential element of the offence was not found - Additionally, there was insufficient evidence to establish such an element.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Andres, [1982] 2 W.W.R. 249; 1 Sask.R. 96 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Munroe (1983), 5 C.C.C.(3d) 217 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Lohnes, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 167; 132 N.R. 297; 109 N.S.R.(2d) 145; 297 A.P.R. 145, dist. [para. 14].

R. v. Gauvin (1984), 2 O.A.C. 309; 11 C.C.C.(3d) 229 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

Counsel:

Mr. Hudson, appeared on his own behalf;

Dennis R. Cann, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard by Gabrielson, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Battleford, who delivered the following judgment on January 15, 2007.