R. v. A.J.P., (2001) 199 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 63 (NFPC)

• Judge: Gorman, P.C.J.
• Court: Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 19, 2001
• Jurisdiction: Newfoundland and Labrador
• Citations: (2001), 199 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 63 (NFPC)

R. v. A.J.P. (2001), 199 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 63 (NFPC);

    600 A.P.R. 63

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] Nfld. & P.E.I.R. TBEd. MR.039

P.(A.J.) (applicant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)

(No. 10-00Y-180)

Indexed As: R. v. A.J.P.

Newfoundland Provincial Court

Gorman, P.C.J.

March 2, 2001.

Summary:

The accused young person was charged with assault. He applied for a stay of pro­ceedings, alleging a violation of his s. 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time. The total time period from the swear­ing of the information to the date set for trial was 303 days.

The Newfoundland Provincial Court dis­missed the application. The delay, although requiring an explanation, was not excessive. The delay was inherent to the case where it was caused by cancellations of a Provincial Court circuit, resulting from the appointment of two Provincial Court judges to the Supreme Court, Trial Division. Therefore, it should not be counted against the Crown. Further, there was no prejudice to the accused.

Civil Rights - Topic 3261

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Speedy trial - Accused's right to - General - The New­foundland Provincial Court reviewed the jurisprudence respecting an accused's right, under s. 11(b) of the Charter, to be tried within a reasonable time - See paragraphs 12 to 44.

Civil Rights - Topic 3265

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Speedy trial - Accused's right to - What constitutes "within a reasonable time" - The accused young person was charged with assault - The time from the swearing of the infor­mation to the trial date was 303 days - The Newfoundland Provincial Court dismissed the accused's application for a stay of proceedings because of delay (Charter, s. 11(b)) - The delay, although requiring an explanation, was not excessive - The delay was inherent to the case where it was caused by cancellations of a Provincial Court circuit, resulting from the appointment of two Provincial Court judges to the Supreme Court, Trial Divi­sion - Therefore, it should not be counted against the Crown - Further, there was no prejudice to the accused, who was not arrested or bound by stringent conditions and made only one court appearance.

Civil Rights - Topic 3270

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Speedy trial - Accused's right to - Evidence of prejudice and causes of delay - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3265 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Kalanj; R. v. Pion, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1594; 96 N.R. 191; 48 C.C.C.(3d) 459; 70 C.R.(3d) 260, refd to. [para. 7, foot­note 1].

R. v. Morin, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 771; 134 N.R. 321; 53 O.A.C. 241; 71 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 10, footnote 2].

R. v. Sharma (1992), 134 N.R. 368; 53 O.A.C. 288; 71 C.C.C.(3d) 184, refd to. [para. 11, footnote 2].

R. v. M.A.J. (1991), 46 O.A.C. 136; 64 C.C.C.(3d) 483 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Carter, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 981; 67 N.R. 375; 52 C.R.(3d) 100; 29 D.L.R.(4th) 309; 26 C.C.C.(3d) 572, refd to. [para. 13, footnote 4].

R. v. Rahey, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 588; 75 N.R. 81; 78 N.S.R.(2d) 183; 193 A.P.R. 183; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 57 C.R.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 13, footnote 4].

R. v. Smith (M.H.), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1120; 102 N.R. 205; 63 Man.R.(2d) 81; 52 C.C.C.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 13, foot­note 4].

Osborne, Millar and Barnhart et al. v. Canada (Treasury Board) et al., [1991] 2 S.C.R. 69; 125 N.R. 241; 82 D.L.R.(4th) 321, refd to. [para. 13, footnote 5].

Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291; 9 C.R.R. 355; 14 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 41 C.R.(3d) 97; [1984] 6 W.W.R. 577; 33 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193; 27 B.L.R. 297; 84 D.T.C. 6467; 2 C.P.R.(3d) 1; 11 D.L.R.(4th) 641, refd to. [para. 13, footnote 5].

Reference Re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266; [1986] 1 W.W.R. 481; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 48 C.R.(3d) 289; 24 D.L.R.(4th) 536; 36 M.V.R. 240; 69 B.C.L.R.(2d) 145; 18 C.R.R. 30, refd to. [para. 13, footnote 5].

R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161; [1985] 3 W.W.R. 481; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 321; 37 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97; 85 C.L.L.C. 14,023; 13 C.R.R. 64, refd to. [para. 13, footnote 5].

R. v. Reid (B.W.) (1999), 171 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 143; 525 A.P.R. 143 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 14, footnote 7].

R. v. Cousins (J.D.) (1998), 176 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1; 540 A.P.R. 1 (Nfld.T.D.), refd to. [para. 14, footnote 7].

R. v. MacDougall (P.A.) (1998), 231 N.R. 147; 168 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 83; 517 A.P.R. 83; 128 C.C.C.(3d) 483 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 14, footnote 7].

R. v. CIP Inc., [1992] 1 S.C.R. 843; 135 N.R. 90; 52 O.A.C. 366; 12 C.R.(4th) 237; 71 C.C.C.(3d) 129, refd to. [para. 14, footnote 7].

R. v. Scott (D.C.) (2001), 147 B.C.A.C. 76; 241 W.A.C. 76, refd to. [para. 14, footnote 7].

R. v. J.G.B. (2001), 139 O.A.C. 341 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14, footnote 7].

R. v. Mills, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 863; 67 N.R. 241; 16 O.A.C. 81; 52 C.R.(3d) 1; 26 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Askov, Hussey, Melo and Gugliotta, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1199; 113 N.R. 241; 42 O.A.C. 81; 59 C.C.C.(3d) 449; 79 C.R.(3d) 273, refd to. [para. 15].

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. 18].

R. v. Smith (M.H.), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1120; 102 N.R. 205; 63 Man.R.(2d) 81; 52 C.C.C.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. White (K.) (1998), 160 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 309; 494 A.P.R. 309 (Nfld. C.A.), affd. (1998), 171 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 141; 525 A.P.R. 141 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Trudel (S.) (1992), 60 Q.A.C. 138; 78 C.C.C.(3d) 169 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Reid (B.W.) (1999), 171 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 143; 525 A.P.R. 143 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Potvin (R.), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 880; 155 N.R. 241; 66 O.A.C. 81; 105 D.L.R.(4th) 214; 83 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 23 C.R.(4th) 10; 16 C.R.R.(2d) 260, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Finn (D.M.) (1996), 139 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 97; 433 A.P.R. 97; 106 C.C.C.(3d) 43 (Nfld. C.A.), affd. [1997] 1 S.C.R. 10; 207 N.R. 244; 148 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 89; 464 A.P.R. 89; 112 C.C.C.(3d) 288, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Korponey, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 41; 44 N.R. 103; 65 C.C.C.(2d) 65, refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Bennett (1991), 46 O.A.C. 99; 3 O.R.(3d) 193; 64 C.C.C.(3d) 449 (C.A.), affd. [1992] 2 S.C.R. 168; 138 N.R. 388; 54 O.A.C. 350, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Rogalsky (E.J.) et al. (1994), 125 Sask.R. 271; 81 W.A.C. 271; 95 C.C.C.(3d) 41 (C.A.), affd. [1995] 4 S.C.R. 48; 189 N.R. 82; 137 Sask.R. 230; 107 W.A.C. 230; 102 C.C.C.(3d) 575, refd to. [para. 30].

Jack v. R. (1982), 38 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 471; 108 A.P.R. 471; 1 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. W.B. (2000), 133 O.A.C. 3; 145 C.C.C.(3d) 498 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Rahey (1983), 61 N.S.R.(2d) 385; 133 A.P.R. 385; 9 C.C.C.(3d) 385 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Gallant (C.A.) (1998), 231 N.R. 190; 168 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 126; 517 A.P.R. 126; 128 C.C.C.(3d) 509 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Angnatuk, [1999] Q.J. No. 5276 (Crim. Div.), refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Lambert (G.) (1992), 99 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 165; 315 A.P.R. 165 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Allen (H.D.) (1996), 92 O.A.C. 345; 1 C.R.(5th) 347 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Clarkson, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 383; 66 N.R. 114; 69 N.B.R.(2d) 40; 177 A.P.R. 40; 25 C.C.C.(3d) 207; 50 C.R.(3d) 289; 26 D.L.R.(4th) 493; 19 C.R.R. 209, refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. C.S. (1999), 172 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 175; 528 A.P.R. 175 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 52].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Coughlan, S.G., R. v. Askov - A Bold Step Not Boldly Taken (1990-91), 33 C.L.Q. 247, generally [para. 37, footnote 9].

Quinlan, P., Askov: Lowering the Boom (1990), 79 C.R.(3d) 321, generally [para. 37, footnote 9].

Roach, K., Developments in Criminal Law and Procedure: The 1993-94 Term (1992), 3 Sup. Ct. L. Rev.(2d) 121, generally [para. 37, footnote 9].

Counsel:

Desmond Parsons, for the applicant;

Roger Mitchell, for Her Majesty the Queen.

This application was heard on January 19, 2001, by Gorman, P.C.J., of the Newfound­land Provincial Court, who delivered the following decision on March 2, 2001.