R. v. Kuny (A.), (1999) 188 Sask.R. 182 (ProvCt)

• Judge: Halderman, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: December 06, 1999
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (1999), 188 Sask.R. 182 (ProvCt)

R. v. Kuny (A.) (1999), 188 Sask.R. 182 (ProvCt)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] Sask.R. TBEd. DE.053

Her Majesty the Queen v. Adam Kuny

Indexed As: R. v. Kuny (A.)

Saskatchewan Provincial Court

Tisdale

Halderman, P.C.J.

December 6, 1999.

Summary:

The accused pled guilty to performing unauthorized services as a denturist, contrary to ss. 24 and 44 of the Dental Disciplines Act.

The Saskatchewan Provincial Court im­posed a fine of $2,700, together with the mandatory surcharge pursuant to the Victims of Crime Act of $405.

Professional Occupations - Topic 2553

Denturists, dental technicians and dental hygienists - Unauthorized practice - Penal­ties - The accused denturist pled guilty to performing unauthorized services, contrary to ss. 24 and 44 of the Dental Disciplines Act - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court imposed a fine of $2,700, together with the mandatory surcharge pursuant to the Vic­tims of Crime Act of $405 - See para­graphs 16 to 26.

Professional Occupations - Topic 2582

Denturists, dental technicians and dental hygienists - Regulation - Applicable legis­lation - [See Statutes - Topic 6714 ].

Statutes - Topic 6714

Operation and effect - Commencement, duration and repeal - Retrospective and retroactive enactments - Retrospective or retroactive operation - Criminal or penal legislation - The accused denturist pled guilty to performing unauthorized services, contrary to ss. 24 and 44 of the Dental Disciplines Act (DDA) - The accused had one prior conviction under the Denturists Act, the predecessor of the DDA - At issue, inter alia, was whether the DDA was to be given retrospective effect, con­sidering the prior conviction as a first offence - The DDA increased the Den­turists Act's maximum fines by 20 times - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court held the DDA was to be given retrospective effect and this offence was a second con­viction - See paragraphs 7 to 12.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Tod, [1977] 2 W.W.R. 168 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Johnston, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 391; 19 N.R. 476; 9 A.R. 22; 39 C.C.C.(2d) 479, folld. [para. 11].

R. v. Windrum (P.) (1994), 126 Sask.R. 15 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 20].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 727 [para. 13].

Summary Offences Procedure Act, S.S. 1990-91, c. S-63.1, sect. 4(1), sect. 4(4) [para. 13].

Counsel:

A.J. Krishan, for the Crown;

William Selnes and Todd Parlee, for the accused.

This matter was heard by Halderman, P.C.J., of the Saskatchewan Provincial Court, Tisdale, who delivered the following deci­sion on December 6, 1999.