R. v. J.P., 2008 SKPC 141

JudgeMorgan, P.C.J.
CourtProvincial Court of Saskatchewan (Canada)
Case DateOctober 30, 2008
JurisdictionSaskatchewan
Citations2008 SKPC 141;(2008), 325 Sask.R. 112 (PC)

R. v. J.P. (2008), 325 Sask.R. 112 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2008] Sask.R. TBEd. NO.010

Her Majesty the Queen v. J.P.

(Information No. Y332660; 2008 SKPC 141)

Indexed As: R. v. J.P.

Saskatchewan Provincial Court

Youth Justice Court

Morgan, P.C.J.

October 30, 2008.

Summary:

A youth who was charged with touching a person under the age of 14 years for a sexual purpose sought a stay of the charges based on unreasonable delay.

The Saskatchewan Provincial Court, Youth Justice Court, dismissed the application.

Editor's Note: Certain names in the following case have been initialized or the case otherwise edited to prevent the disclosure of identities where required by law, publication ban, Maritime Law Book's editorial policy or otherwise.

Civil Rights - Topic 3265

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Speedy trial - Accused's right to - What constitutes "within a reasonable time" - A youth who was charged with touching a person under the age of 14 years for a sexual purpose sought a stay of the charges based on unreasonable delay - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court, Youth Justice Court, dismissed the application - The delay between the swearing of the information and the date set for trial was 15 months - This merited a further examination - An initial trial date (October 2007) that was three months in the future was rejected by the defence - That time period was reasonable - A trial date was agreed on (April 2008), but the trial was unable to proceed due to a lack of court time - The court then offered a date that was two months in the future (June 2008) - This was rejected and the trial was rescheduled on the date that defence counsel was next available (September 2008) - Were it not for the unavailability of counsel, the case would have been completed in five months - Reasonably prompt trial dates were made available, but were not acceptable to the youth - The youth's right under s. 11(b) of the Charter had not been infringed - Sections 3(1)(b) and 3(2) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, regarding the "fast-tracking" of youth matters, did not alter the court's view - Overall, the delay here was not unreasonable - See paragraphs 12 to 41.

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 - A youth who was charged with touching a person under the age of 14 years for a sexual purpose sought a stay of the charges based on unreasonable delay - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court, Youth Justice Court, dismissed the application - The court rejected the youth's argument that he had suffered actual prejudice due to the delay because the nature of the charge carried a significant stigma in a small town and because the youth had been ostracized - The court was not satisfied that the prejudice that the youth alleged was prejudice that could be tied directly to the fact that the trial had not yet been completed as opposed to the stigma and inconvenience that necessarily accompanied the fact of the criminal charge, itself - It was unfortunate that the privacy provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act had not had the desired effect, but that was a product of the charge and was not connected to the length of time it had taken to conclude the matter - See paragraph 38.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. S.M. (2003), 230 Sask.R. 25; 2003 SKPC 39, refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. Askov, Hussey, Melo and Gugliotta, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1199; 113 N.R. 241; 42 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Kaiswatum (E.B.) (2002), 215 Sask.R. 144; 2002 SKQB 26, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. McAllister (R.S.) (2005), 263 Sask.R. 47; 2005 SKPC 56, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. A.M.Z., 2006 BCPC 442, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Morin, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 771; 134 N.R. 321; 53 O.A.C. 241; 1992 CanLII 89, refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Bosovich (A.A.) (2004), 256 Sask.R. 233; 2004 SKPC 150, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Pilon (R.R.), [1996] B.C.T.C. Uned. A94; 1996 CanLII 8447 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 28].

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) 208, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Ukrainetz (K.D.) (2006), 284 Sask.R. 250; 2006 SKPC 67, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Gibb (B.R.), [1999] 8 W.W.R. 644; 187 Sask.R. 266; 30 C.R.(5th) 189; 1999 SKQB 170, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Kovacs-Tatar (G.) (2004), 192 O.A.C. 268; 192 C.C.C.(3d) 91; 2004 CanLII 4293 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

Counsel:

C. Pannell, for the Crown;

M. Owens, for the Defence.

This application was heard by Morgan, P.C.J., of the Saskatchewan Provincial Court, Youth Justice Court, who delivered the following judgment on October 30, 2008.

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT