R. v. Jackson (J.), (2002) 318 A.R. 263 (PC)

• Judge: Lefever, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: August 30, 2002
• Citations: (2002), 318 A.R. 263 (PC);2002 ABPC 135

R. v. Jackson (J.) (2002), 318 A.R. 263 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2002] A.R. TBEd. OC.022

Her Majesty the Queen v. Jeffrey Jackson

(006057525P1-01; 006081327P1-01; 2002 ABPC 135)

Indexed As: R. v. Jackson (J.)

Alberta Provincial Court

Lefever, P.C.J.

August 30, 2002.

Summary:

An accused was cited for contempt.

The Alberta Provincial Court held that the accused was not in contempt.

Editor's note: for a related decision involving the same accused see (2002), 318 A.R. 249.

Contempt - Topic 42

General - Elements of contempt - Mens rea - The Alberta Provincial Court stated that "the common law crime of contempt nevertheless requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt as to the actus reus and of the mens rea, although the requisite mens rea can be inferred from all the surrounding circumstances." - See paragraph 63.

Contempt - Topic 515

What constitutes contempt - General principles - Contempt in face of the court - The Alberta Provincial Court stated that "I take as an overarching principle that the in facie conduct alleged to be contumacious must be ... 'conduct which seriously interferes with or obstructs the administration of justice or which causes a serious risk of interference or obstruction'" - The court adopted as one example of conduct which might seriously interfere with the administration of justice the following language of Labrosse, J.A., in R. v. Glasner (Ont. C.A.): "As criminal cases fail to move forward because of the indifferent conduct of defence counsel, public respect for the administration of justice suffers. ... 'The failure of the justice system to deal fairly, quickly and efficiently with criminal trials inevitably leads to the community's frustration with the judicial system and eventually to a feeling of contempt for court procedures.'" - See paragraphs 56 and 57.

Contempt - Topic 585

What constitutes contempt - Abuse of process - Judge shopping - Defence counsel and Crown counsel approached Caffaro, A.C.J., and, after inquiring, understood that he would accept the accused's guilty plea on a summary disposition - Through error, the understanding was not formalized on the scheduled date - The matter was remanded to February 25, 2002 - Defence counsel had a scheduling conflict - On February 25, 2002, defence counsel unsuccessfully sought to have the matter adjourned to a date to be heard by Caffaro, A.C.J. - Defence counsel obtained leave to withdraw as counsel - The unrepresented accused was not prepared to proceed - The presiding judge revoked the accused's bail and cited him for contempt (Criminal Code, s. 524) - The alleged contumacious behaviour included "judge-shopping" leading to a failure to complete an undertaking to plead guilty and resolve matters by summary disposition - The Alberta Provincial Court held that the accused was not in contempt - For a breach of an undertaking to sustain a citation for contempt required much more formality and clarity - Even if the setting of a summary disposition date carried with it an "undertaking" to plead guilty, such a breach would not engage s. 524 - The adjournment application was not judge shopping of an impermissible kind - See paragraphs 52 to 100.

Contempt - Topic 585

What constitutes contempt - Abuse of process - Judge shopping - The Alberta Provincial Court stated that "judge shopping" could amount to contempt - To find that conduct constituted judge shopping required some active steps by counsel to inappropriately manipulate the court system for an improper advantage - It was not possible, nor appropriate, to attempt to define some all inclusive description of conduct which was offensive - Each allegation of judge shopping had to be individually reviewed to determine if the impugned conduct was permissible - See paragraph 88.

Contempt - Topic 695

What constitutes contempt - Judgments and orders - Undertaking by party - [See first Contempt - Topic 585 ].

Contempt - Topic 5082

Practice - Evidence and proof - Standard of proof - [See Contempt - Topic 42 ].

Contempt - Topic 5090

Practice - Evidence and proof - Criminal contempt - [See Contempt - Topic 42 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 3319

Compelling appearance, detention and release - Interim release or detention of accused pending trial or appeal - Vacating, cancelling or varying interim release order - [See first Contempt - Topic 585 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 6985

Recognizances and undertakings - Undertakings - Breach - [See first Contempt - Topic 585 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Askov, Hussey, Melo and Gugliotta (1990), 113 N.R. 241; 42 O.A.C. 81; 59 C.C.C.(3d) 449 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. B.K. (1995), 188 N.R. 338; 134 Sask.R. 279; 101 W.A.C. 279; 102 C.C.C.(3d) 18 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Cohn (1984), 15 C.C.C.(3d) 150 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. Glasner (E.) (1994), 74 O.A.C. 81; 93 C.C.C.(3d) 226 (C.A.), folld. [para. 53].

R. v. Vermette (1987), 74 N.R. 221; 77 A.R. 372; 32 C.C.C.(3d) 519 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. Doz (1985), 59 A.R. 185; 19 C.C.C.(3d) 434 (C.A.), revd. (1987) 79 N.R. 151; 82 A.R. 394; 38 C.C.C.(3d) 479 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 55].

United Nurse of Alberta v. Alberta (Attorney General) (1992), 135 N.R. 321; 125 A.R. 241; 14 W.A.C. 241; 71 C.C.C.(3d) 225 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 59].

R. v. Boyd (A.) (2002), 319 A.R. 161 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Veked, [1995] B.C.J. No. 1403 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 68].

R. v. Browne (D.) (1997), 100 O.A.C. 152; 116 C.C.C.(3d) 183 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 70].

R. v. Betthel, [1995] A.J. No. 1069 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 75].

R. v. Cattleman (L.P.) (1995), 173 A.R. 317 (Q.B.), appld. [para. 81].

R. v. Regan (G.A.) (2002), 282 N.R. 1; 201 N.S.R.(2d) 63; 629 A.P.R. 63; 161 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 83].

R. v. Scott (1990), 116 N.R. 361; 43 O.A.C. 277; 61 C.C.C.(3d) 300 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 85].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Law Society of Alberta, Code of Professional Conduct, c. 10 [;para. 17]; rules 14 [para. 18]; 16 [paras. 18, 19].

Counsel:

William G. Pinckney, for the Crown;

Peter Royal, Q.C., for the accused.

This matter was heard by Lefever, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment at Edmonton, Alberta, on August 30, 2002.