R. v. Kosowan (J.M.), 2015 SKPC 8

• Judge: Cardinal, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: January 19, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2015 SKPC 8;(2015), 466 Sask.R. 136 (PC)

R. v. Kosowan (J.M.) (2015), 466 Sask.R. 136 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] Sask.R. TBEd. JA.047

Her Majesty the Queen v. Jordan Michael Kosowan

(Information No. 24087856; 2015 SKPC 8)

Indexed As: R. v. Kosowan (J.M.)

Saskatchewan Provincial Court

Cardinal, P.C.J.

January 19, 2015.

Summary:

The accused was charged with assault. The Crown applied to have the complainant recalled to the stand, submitting that defence counsel had breached the rule in Browne v. Dunn by not sufficiently challenging the complainant with the defence evidence which contradicted her.

The Saskatchewan Provincial Court dismissed the application.

Criminal Law - Topic 5415

Evidence and witnesses - Witnesses - Cross-examination of - [See Evidence - Topic 4716 ].

Evidence - Topic 4716

Witnesses - Examination - Cross-examination - On testimony to be contradicted - Kosowan was charged with assaulting Redman at their residence - Redman testified that no one else was at their residence on the night in question - Zurloff testified for the defence that she and others were at Kosowan and Redman's residence on the night in question and that there was no physical altercation between the two - The Crown applied to have Redman recalled to the stand, submitting that defence counsel had breached the rule in Browne v. Dunn by not sufficiently challenging Redman with the contradictory evidence of Zurloff - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court dismissed the application - The rule in Browne v. Dunn was not engaged - Defence counsel was not obligated to put all the details to Redman concerning the contradictory evidence that he expected Zurloff to proffer - He asked Redman a number of times whether they had people over to their residence and she repeatedly responded that they had not - Nothing more would be gained from defence counsel putting more details to Redman in cross-examination.

Cases Noticed:

Browne v. Dunn (1893), 6 R. 67 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. McNeill (S.) (2000), 131 O.A.C. 346 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Lyttle (M.G.) (2004), 316 N.R. 52; 184 O.A.C. 1; 2004 SCC 5, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Johnson (K.) (2010), 267 O.A.C. 201; 2010 ONCA 646, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Khuc (T.A.) et al. (2000), 132 B.C.A.C. 139; 215 W.A.C. 139; 2000 BCCA 20, refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Dexter (B.) (2013), 313 O.A.C. 226; 2013 ONCA 744, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. P.K.W. (2014), 442 Sask.R. 21; 616 W.A.C. 21; 2014 SKCA 76, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Drydgen (M.J.) (2013), 338 B.C.A.C. 299; 577 W.A.C. 299; 2013 BCCA 253, refd to. [para. 12].

Counsel:

T. Olyenchuk, for the Crown;

J. Streeton, for the accused.

This application was heard at Nipawin, Saskatchewan, before Cardinal, P.C.J., of the Saskatchewan Provincial Court, who delivered the following interim ruling on January 19, 2015.