R. v. Kennedy (S.), 2004 ABQB 686

• Judge: Watson, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: September 21, 2004
• Citations: 2004 ABQB 686;(2004), 369 A.R. 273 (QB)

R. v. Kennedy (S.) (2004), 369 A.R. 273 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] A.R. TBEd. OC.015

Her Majesty The Queen v. Shaun Kennedy

(0310 70162 Q1; 2004 ABQB 686)

Indexed As: R. v. Kennedy (S.)

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Watson, J.

September 21, 2004.

Summary:

The accused was charged with assault with a weapon (flashlight) and assault causing bodily harm. The accused applied for a stay of proceedings, alleging a denial of his ss. 7 and 11(d) Charter rights. Alternatively, the accused sought to quash the assault causing bodily harm count.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench granted a stay of proceedings. Had the court not done so, the assault causing bodily harm count would have been quashed as there was no evidence capable of supporting a finding that the victim suffered bodily harm.

Civil Rights - Topic 3130

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Delay - In April 2000, the accused R.C.M.P. officer allegedly struck with a flashlight one out of a group of up to 20 confrontational young persons who were drinking - Complaints were filed against the officer - The internal police investigation was "very slow" - Key witnesses were not interviewed for almost one year - Others were not interviewed for up to 29 months - Charges were not laid until September 2003 and a preliminary hearing was held in March 2004 - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench granted the accused a stay of proceedings - The investigation was dilatory and neglectful - The investigative delay irreparably prejudiced the accused's right to make full answer and defence - All witnesses suffered memory loss, which was further frustrated by the failure to obtain timely statements - Some witnesses could not be identified - The investigative delay was unjustifiable and inexcusable and, when it did take place, it was negligently done - It would be an abuse of process to start the trial after a 54 month delay, because the accused could no longer be assured a fair trial - The accused's rights under ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter were denied.

Civil Rights - Topic 3133

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Right of accused to make full answer and defence - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3130 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 3157

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Right to just and fair trial - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3130 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 3157.4

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Abuse of process - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3130 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8374

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Stay of proceedings - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3130 ].

Police - Topic 5031

Actions against police - Negligence - Conduct of investigation (incl. negligent investigation) - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3130 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Regan (G.A.), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 297; 282 N.R. 1; 201 N.S.R.(2d) 63; 629 A.P.R. 63; 161 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 49 C.R.(5th) 1; 209 D.L.R.(4th) 41; 91 C.R.R.(2d) 51; 2002 CarswellNS 61; 2002 SCC 12, refd to. [para. 6, footnote 1].

R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326; 130 N.R. 277; 120 A.R. 161; 8 W.A.C. 161; 68 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 8 C.R.(4th) 277; 68 C.C.C.(3d) 1; [1992] 1 W.W.R. 97; 83 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193; 18 C.R.R.(2d) 210; 1991 CarswellAlta 192, refd to. [para. 14, footnote 3].

R. v. Cherpak, [1978] 5 W.W.R. 315; 9 A.R. 596; 42 C.C.C.(2d) 166; 1978 CarswellAlta 254 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1978), 24 N.R. 540; 13 A.R. 180; 42 C.C.C.(2d) 166 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 15, footnote 4].

R. v. Waterfield, [1964] 1 Q.B. 164; [1963] 3 W.L.R. 946; 48 Cr. App. Rep. 42; [1963] 3 All E.R. 659, refd to. [para. 33, footnote 6].

R. v. Dedman, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 2; 60 N.R. 34; 11 O.A.C. 241; 46 C.R.(3d) 193; 20 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 34 M.V.R. 1; 20 D.L.R.(4th) 321; 1985 CarswellOnt 103, refd to. [para. 33, footnote 7].

R. v. Mann (P.H.), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 59; 324 N.R. 215; 187 Man.R.(2d) 1; 330 W.A.C. 1; 185 C.C.C.(3d) 308; 21 C.R.(6th) 1; 2004 CarswellMan 303; 2004 SCC 52, refd to. [para. 33, footnote 8].

R. v. V.T., [1992] 1 S.C.R. 749; 134 N.R. 289; 7 B.C.A.C. 81; 15 W.A.C. 81: 71 C.C.C.(3d) 32; 12 C.R.(4th) 133; [1992] 3 W.W.R. 193; 67 B.C.L.R.(2d) 273; 1992 CarswellBC 142, refd to. [para. 36, footnote 13].

R. v. Power (E.), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 601; 165 N.R. 241; 117 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 269; 365 A.P.R. 269; 89 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 29 C.R.(4th) 1; 2 M.V.R.(3d) 161; 1994 CarswellNfld 9, refd to. [para. 36, footnote 14].

R. v. Cook (D.W.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 1113; 210 N.R. 197; 188 N.B.R.(2d) 161; 480 A.P.R. 161; 114 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 7 C.R.(5th) 51; 1997 CarswellNB 125, refd to. [para. 45, footnote 15].

R. v. Boutiller (R.E.) (1995), 147 N.S.R.(2d) 200; 426 A.P.R. 200 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 51, footnote 16].

R. v. A.D.G. (2001), 192 N.S.R.(2d) 102; 599 A.P.R. 102; 2001 NSCA 28, refd to. [para. 51, footnote 16].

R. v. Ng (K.-F.) (2003), 327 A.R. 215; 296 W.A.C. 215; 173 C.C.C.(3d) 349; 18 Alta. L.R.(4th) 77; 2003 CarswellAlta 613; 2003 ABCA 1, leave to appeal granted (2004), 330 N.R. 396; 363 A.R. 399; 343 W.A.C. 399 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 52, footnote 17].

Blencoe v. Human Rights Commission (B.C.) et al., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 307; 260 N.R. 1; 141 B.C.A.C. 161; 231 W.A.C. 161; 190 D.L.R.(4th) 513; 23 Admin. L.R.(3d) 175; [2000] 10 W.W.R. 567; 81 B.C.L.R.(3d) 1; 77 C.R.R.(2d) 189; 2000 C.L.L.C. 230-040; 3 C.C.E.L.(3d) 165; 2000 CarswellBC 1860; 2000 SCC 44, refd to. [para. 57, footnote 18].

R. v. W.K.L., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 1091; 124 N.R. 146; [1991] 4 W.W.R. 385; 64 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 6 C.R.(4th) 1; 4 C.R.R.(2d) 298; [1991] 4 W.W.R. 385; 1991 CarswellBC 806, refd to. [para. 59, footnote 19].

R. v. La (H.K.) et al., [1997] 2 S.C.R. 680; 213 N.R. 1; 200 A.R. 81; 146 W.A.C. 81; 116 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 8 C.R.(5th) 155; 148 D.L.R.(4th) 608; 51 Alta. L.R.(3d) 181; 1997 CarswellAlta 490, refd to. [para. 62, footnote 20].

R. v. Vu - see R. v. La (H.K.) et al.

Director of Public Prosecutions v. Humphreys, [1977] A.C. 1; [1976] 2 W.L.R. 857; 63 Cr. App. Rep. 95; [1976] 2 All E.R. 497 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 62, footnote 21].

R. v. Carosella (N.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 80; 207 N.R. 321; 98 O.A.C. 81: 142 D.L.R.(4th) 595; 112 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 4 C.R.(5th) 139; 41 C.R.R.(2d) 189; 1997 CarswellOnt 85; 2 B.H.R.C. 23, refd to. [para. 63, footnote 22].

R. v. J.G.B. (2001), 139 O.A.C. 341; 151 C.C.C.(3d) 363; 52 O.R.(3d) 257; 39 C.R.(5th) 323; 79 C.R.R.(2d) 308; 2001 CarswellOnt 69 (C.A.), leave to appeal dismissed [2001] S.C.C.A. No. 131, refd to. [para. 64, footnote 23].

R. v. Dulude (V.) (2004), 189 O.A.C. 323; 2004 CarswellOnt 3514 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 64, footnote 24].

R. v. Leduc (J.) (2003) 174 O.A.C. 242; 66 O.R.(3d) 1; 176 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 2003 CarswellOnt 2926 (C.A.), leave to appeal allowed 2003 CarswellOnt 4761 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 65, footnote 25].

R. v. F.C.B. (2000), 182 N.S.R.(2d) 215; 563 A.P.R. 215; 142 C.C.C.(3d) 540; 73 C.R.R.(2d) 221; 2000 CarswellNS 50; 2000 NSCA 35 (C.A.), affd. (2000), 262 N.R. 398; 196 N.S.R.(2d) 396; 613 A.P.R. 396; 142 C.C.C.(3d) 540; 2000 CarswellNS 320 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 67, footnote 26].

R. v. Cassidy (J.R.) (2004), 180 O.A.C. 355; 182 C.C.C.(3d) 294 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 68, footnote 27].

R. v. Merchant (B.M.) (1992), 127 A.R. 226; 20 W.A.C. 226; 1992 CarswellAlta 482 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 69, footnote 28].

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; 39 D.L.R.(4th) 481; 33 C.R.R. 275; 1987 CarswellNS 38, refd to. [para. 76, footnote 29].

R. v. Augustus, Rivett and Sartor, [1977] 6 W.W.R. 36; 5 A.R. 499; 1977 CarswellAlta 237 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 80, footnote 30].

R. v. Fontaine (J.), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 702; 318 N.R. 371; 183 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 18 C.R.(6th) 203; 237 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 2004 CarswellQue 814; 2004 SCC 27, refd to. [para. 81, footnote 31].

Counsel:

Rod J.A. Gregory (Davidson, Gregory, Danyluik), for the applicant;

Jeff Rudiak (Alberta Justice), for the Crown, respondent.

This application was heard on September 20-21, 2004, before Watson, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment on September 21, 2004.