R. v. Ingram (G.L.), (2012) 401 Sask.R. 146 (PC)

• Judge: Morgan, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: July 17, 2012
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2012), 401 Sask.R. 146 (PC);2012 SKPC 105

R. v. Ingram (G.L.) (2012), 401 Sask.R. 146 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2012] Sask.R. TBEd. JL.039

Her Majesty the Queen v. Gregory Lee Ingram

(Information No. 24316594; 2012 SKPC 105)

Indexed As: R. v. Ingram (G.L.)

Saskatchewan Provincial Court

Morgan, P.C.J.

July 17, 2012.

Summary:

In September 2010, Ingram pled guilty to two counts of sexual assault in British Columbia. He was sentenced to three years' incarceration. An order requiring him to comply with the Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) for 20 years was imposed. In April 2011, amendments to the SOIRA required compliance with the SOIRA for life where the subject of the order was convicted of more than one designated offence (including sexual assault). In April 2012, Ingram pled guilty in Saskatchewan to sexual assault. The complainant was one of the two complainants in the B.C. convictions. The Crown and the defence took the view that the Saskatchewan conviction was a continuation of the B.C. convictions such that Ingram would not serve any additional time. However, the court was required to impose a lifetime SOIRA order. Asserting a breach of s. 7 of the Charter in that the Saskatchewan Crown's dilatory conduct resulted in his being subject to the lifetime order, Ingram applied for a constitutional exemption or a judicial stay of proceedings.

The Saskatchewan Provincial Court dismissed the application.

Civil Rights - Topic 3157.4

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Abuse of process - In September 2010, Ingram pled guilty to two counts of sexual assault in British Columbia - He was sentenced to three years' incarceration - An order requiring him to comply with the Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) for 20 years was imposed - In April 2011, amendments to the SOIRA required compliance with the SOIRA for life where the subject of the order was convicted of more than one designated offence (including sexual assault) - In April 2012, Ingram pled guilty in Saskatchewan to sexual assault - The complainant was one of the two complainants in the B.C. convictions - The Crown and the defence took the view that the Saskatchewan conviction was a continuation of the B.C. convictions such that Ingram would not serve any additional time - However, the court was required to impose a lifetime SOIRA order - Asserting a breach of s. 7 of the Charter in that the Saskatchewan Crown's dilatory conduct resulted in his being subject to the lifetime order, Ingram applied for a constitutional exemption or a judicial stay of proceedings - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court dismissed the application - While the court had a residual discretion to stay proceedings where there was an abuse of process, there was no such abuse here - It was reasonable for the Saskatchewan Crown to want to talk to the complainant and ensure her willingness before deciding whether or not to proceed - While this might have caused delay, it was inappropriate for the court to monitor the priorities or workload of the prosecutor - There was no evidence that the Crown incurred delay to take advantage - Nor was there any "real consequence" to Ingram who, at 52, had already been subject to a 20 year order - Finally, the registration requirement was a consequence of conviction and not, in itself, a punishment - See paragraphs 24 to 39.

Civil Rights - Topic 3766

Punishment - General - Punishment defined - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3157.4 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8374

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Stay of proceedings - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3157.4 ].

Courts - Topic 2015

Jurisdiction - General principles - Controlling abuse of its process - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3157.4 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 26

General principles - Prosecution of crime - Prosecutorial discretion - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3157.4 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 253

General principles - Abuse of process - What constitutes - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3157.4 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 3090.6

Special powers - Sex offender registration legislation - Registration - Duration - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3157.4 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5602

Punishments (sentence) - General principles - Punishment defined - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3157.4 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Nixon (O.), [2011] 2 S.C.R. 566; 417 N.R. 274; 502 A.R. 18; 517 W.A.C. 18; 2011 SCC 34, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Nasogaluak (L.M.), [2010] 1 S.C.R. 206; 398 N.R. 107; 474 A.R. 88; 479 W.A.C. 88; 2010 SCC 6, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Morin, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 771; 134 N.R. 321; 53 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Jewitt, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 128; 61 N.R. 159; 1985 CanLII 47, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Young (1984), 3 O.A.C. 254; 40 C.R.(3d) 289 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. O'Connor (H.P.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 411; 191 N.R. 1; 68 B.C.A.C. 1; 112 W.A.C. 1; 1995 CanLII 51, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Conway, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1659; 96 N.R. 241; 34 O.A.C. 165; 1989 CanLII 66, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Joudrey (G.W.) (2010), 292 N.S.R.(2d) 332; 2010 NSSC 230, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Box and Aubichon (D.L.) (1994), 118 Sask.R. 241; 1994 CanLII 5026 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Keyowski, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 657; 83 N.R. 296; 65 Sask.R. 122, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. W.K.L., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 1091; 124 N.R. 146, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Mills, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 863; 67 N.R. 241; 16 O.A.C. 81; 1986 CanLII 17, refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Burns (L.H.) (2012), 393 Sask.R. 214; 546 W.A.C. 214; 2012 SKCA 52, refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. C.L.B. (2007), 428 A.R. 295; 2007 ABQB 521, affd. (2010), 477 A.R. 365; 483 W.A.C. 365; 2010 ABCA 134, refd to. [para. 37].

Counsel:

L. O'Connor, for the Crown;

R. Newman, Q.C., for the accused.

This application was heard at Melfort, Saskatchewan, by Morgan, P.C.J., of the Saskatchewan Provincial Court, who delivered the following decision on July 17, 2012.