R. v. Lalo (C.), (2002) 215 N.S.R.(2d) 130 (SC)

• Judge: Robertson, J.
• Court: Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: December 12, 2002
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: (2002), 215 N.S.R.(2d) 130 (SC);2003 NSSC 154

R. v. Lalo (C.) (2002), 215 N.S.R.(2d) 130 (SC);

 675 A.P.R. 130

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. JL.029

Her Majesty The Queen (Crown/respondent) v. Cesar Lalo (defence/applicant)

(CR 154808; CR 154814; CR 154817; CR 154820; CR 154822; CR 154824; 2003 NSSC 154)

Indexed As: R. v. Lalo (C.)

Nova Scotia Supreme Court

Robertson, J.

December 17, 2002.

Summary:

The accused faced 63 charges respecting 27 complainants in six separate indictments. The accused applied under s. 591(1) of the Criminal Code for joinder of all charges into one indictment or to have all charges in the six indictments jointly tried. The Crown also sought joinder, but sought two or three trials of manageable size, rather than the current six.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court dismissed the accused's application and allowed the Crown's application. The court ordered that all charges would be dealt with in three trials, as opposed to one or six. The parties were to make submissions on the Crown's prosecutorial discretion as to which counts would be joined and which matters should proceed to trial first.

Criminal Law - Topic 4746

Procedure - Information or indictment - Charge or count - Indictable offences - Joinder of counts - The accused faced 63 charges respecting 27 complainants in six separate indictments - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court dismissed the accused's application under s. 591(1) of the Criminal Code for joinder of all charges into one indictment or to have all charges in the six indictments jointly tried - The court allowed the Crown's application for three trials of manageable size, rather than the current six - The trial would exceed six months - The court stated that "I do not believe it is in the interests of justice to have a single trial on all of the charges ... This would be too taxing on any jury given the nature of the case, expected duration of the trial, the complexity of similar fact rulings and their application to various counts not to mention the serious issue of a potential mistrial as fatigued jurors might fall away. The trials of the accused on these charges can however be reduced in number, to manageable sized trials on charges dealing with no more than nine complainants, in the result that all of the charges will be dealt with in three trials, not six." - See paragraphs 1 to 21.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Clunas, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 595; 134 N.R. 268; 52 O.A.C. 130; 70 C.C.C.(3d) 115; 11 C.R.(4th) 238, refd to. [para. 1].

R. v. Shrubsall (W.C.) (1999), 186 N.S.R.(2d) 38; 581 A.P.R. 38 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Cuthbert (D.A.) (1996), 72 B.C.A.C. 227; 119 W.A.C. 227; 106 C.C.C.(3d) 28 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Cross and Lazore (1996), 112 C.C.C.(3d) 410 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Marshall, [1999] N.S.J. No. 135, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. J.E.B. (1989), 94 N.S.R.(2d) 312; 247 A.P.R. 312; 52 C.C.C.(3d) 224 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Selhi, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 277; 110 N.R. 318; 86 Sask.R. 253; 53 C.C.C.(3d) 576, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Mombourquette (J.A.) (1992), 117 N.S.R.(2d) 199; 324 A.P.R. 199 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. McClure (D.E.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 445; 266 N.R. 275; 142 O.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Handy (J.) (2002), 290 N.R. 1; 160 O.A.C. 201 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. W.B.C., [2001] N.R. Uned. 267; 153 C.C.C.(3d) 575 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Litchfield, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 333; 161 N.R. 161; 145 A.R. 321; 55 W.A.C. 321; 86 C.C.C.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. McNamara (No. 1) (1981), 56 C.C.C.(2d) 193 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. August, [1996] B.C.J. No. 836 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Dickson (J.) et al. (1996), 22 O.T.C. 169; 33 W.C.B.(2d) 209 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Khan (M.A.) (1996), 110 Man.R.(2d) 241; 118 W.A.C. 241; 108 C.C.C.(3d) 108 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Burke (J.) (No. 3), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 474; 194 N.R. 247; 139 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 147; 433 A.P.R. 147; 105 C.C.C.(3d) 205, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. O'Connor (H.P.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 411; 191 N.R. 1; 68 B.C.A.C. 1; 112 W.A.C. 1; 103 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Regan (G.A.) (1998), 174 N.S.R.(2d) 268; 532 A.P.R. 268 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Roby, [1998] O.J. No. 5928, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Roby, [1999] O.J. No. 1452, refd to. [para. 9].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 591 [para. 3].

Counsel:

Catherine Cogswell and Robert W. Fetterly, for the Crown/respondent;

Maurice G. Smith, Q.C., and Cindy Murray, for the defence/applicant.

These applications were heard on December 12, 2002, at Halifax, N.S., before Robertson, J., of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, whose following oral judgment of December 17, 2002, was released in writing on July 17, 2003.