R. v. Klassen (R.A.) and Steele (S.R.), (1995) 133 Sask.R. 248 (QB)

• Judge: Wright, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: July 06, 1995
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (1995), 133 Sask.R. 248 (QB)

R. v. Klassen (R.A.) (1995), 133 Sask.R. 248 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

In The Matter Of an Information sworn at the City of Saskatoon, in the Province of Saskatchewan, on the 25th day of August, A.D. 1994, alleging that Richard Allan Klassen and Sheila Rose Steele on or about the 24th day of August, A.D., 1994, at or near Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, did publish matter without lawful jurisdic­tion or excuse that was likely to injure the reputation of Brian Dueck by exposing him to hatred, contempt, or ridicule or that was designed to insult Brian Dueck knowing that the matter pub­lished was false and did thereby com­mit an offence contrary to s. 300 of the Criminal Code;

In The Matter Of a committal to stand trial;

And In The Matter Of an Application for a Writ of Certiorari pursuant to Part 52 of the Queen's Bench Rules of Court.

Richard Allan Klassen and Sheila Rose Steele (applicants) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent)

(1995 Q.B.J. No. 18)

Indexed As: R. v. Klassen (R.A.) and Steele (S.R.)

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

Wright, J.

July 6, 1995.

Summary:

The applicants were committed to stand trial for defamatory libel, contrary to s. 300 of the Criminal Code. They applied for certiorari to quash the committals.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench allowed the application in part.

Criminal Law - Topic 1525

Offences against person and reputation - Defamatory libel - Elements of - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that to establish the offence of publishing a defamatory libel the Crown must prove that the accused intended to defame and had subjective knowledge of the falsity of the matter published - It was not enough for the Crown to show that what the accused said was false - It must establish that the accused knew it was false - See paragraph 8.

Criminal Law - Topic 3604

Preliminary inquiry - Adjudication and review - Judicial review of committal order - Grounds for - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench stated that judicial review was available by way of certiorari if the presiding judge lacked jurisdiction - A judge lacked jurisdiction if there was no evidence on which the judge could commit - If there was any evidence on which a reasonable jury properly instructed could convict the challenge will fail - See para­graph 7.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Skogman, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 93; 54 N.R. 34, refd to. [para. 7].

United States of America v. Shephard, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 1067; 9 N.R. 215; 30 C.C.C.(2d) 424; 70 D.L.R.(3d) 136; 34 C.R.N.S. 207, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Stevens, [1993] 7 W.W.R. 38 (Man. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Lucas (J.D.) et al. (No. 3), 132 Sask.R. 71 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 8].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 300 [para. 6].

Counsel:

D.L. MacKinnon, for the applicant, Sheila Rose Steele;

Richard Allen Klassen, unrepresented;

I.J. Cardinal, for the Crown.

This application was heard before Wright, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Saskatoon, who delivered the following judgment on July 6, 1995.