R. v. Laviolette (R.), (2005) 260 Sask.R. 121 (QB)

• Judge: Krueger, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: February 02, 2005
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2005), 260 Sask.R. 121 (QB);2005 SKQB 61

R. v. Laviolette (R.) (2005), 260 Sask.R. 121 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2005] Sask.R. TBEd. FE.006

Ron Laviolette (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)

(2004 Q.B.A. No. 9; 2005 SKQB 61)

Indexed As: R. v. Laviolette (R.)

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Battleford

Krueger, J.

February 2, 2005.

Summary:

The accused was charged with an offence contrary to the Fisheries Regulations. The accused applied for an order that evidence and argument be presented during the trial in order to obtain a ruling on whether Métis were "Indians" for the purposes of s. 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867. The trial judge ruled that given that the Crown had conceded that Métis were Indians within the meaning of s. 91(24), there was no live issue as to whether Métis were "Indians". The accused appealed from that decision pursuant to s. 813 of the Criminal Code.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that it did not have jurisdiction to entertain an interlocutory appeal under s. 813 of the Code.

Criminal Law - Topic 2966

Jurisdiction - Appeals - Interlocutory orders - Bars - The accused was charged with an offence contrary to the Fisheries Regulations - The accused applied for an order that evidence and argument be presented during the trial in order to obtain a ruling on whether Métis were "Indians" for the purposes of s. 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867 - The trial judge ruled that given that the Crown had conceded that Métis were Indians within the meaning of s. 91(24), there was no live issue as to whether Métis were "Indians" - The accused appealed from that decision pursuant to s. 813 of the Criminal Code - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that it did not have jurisdiction to entertain an interlocutory appeal under s. 813 of the Code - Orders referred to in s. 813 were final orders - The trial judge's decision not to allow the accused to introduce evidence regarding his status did not bring finality to the action - It was not a final order.

Criminal Law - Topic 7473.2

Summary conviction proceedings - Appeals - General - Appeal from interlocutory decision - [See Criminal Law - Topic 2966 ].

Trials - Topic 1182

Summary convictions - Appeals - When available - [See Criminal Law - Topic 2966 ].

Cases Noticed:

Kourtessis et al. v. Minister of National Revenue et al., [1993] 2 S.C.R. 53; 153 N.R. 1; 27 B.C.A.C. 81; 45 W.A.C. 81; 81 C.C.C.(3d) 286, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Ferrari (G.V.) et al. (2002), 213 Sask.R. 288; 260 W.A.C. 288 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Meltzer, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1764; 96 N.R. 391, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Mills, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 863; 67 N.R. 241; 16 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Frontier Photos Ltd. (1986), 52 Sask.R. 310 (Q.B.), consd. [para. 14].

R. v. Jarman (1972), 10 C.C.C.(2d) 426 (Ont. C.A.), consd. [para. 15].

R. v. Adams (D.C.) (2001), 290 A.R. 316 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Canadian Pacific Ltd. (1976), 1 A.R. 177; 32 C.C.C.(2d) 14 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Music Explosion Ltd. (1996), 108 Man.R.(2d) 311 (Q.B.), consd. [para. 17].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 813 [para. 6].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Ewaschuk, Eugene G., Criminal Pleadings and Practice in Canada (2nd Ed.) (2003 Looseleaf Update), para. 24:1040 [para. 12].

Sopinka, John, and Gelowitz, Mark A., The Conduct of An Appeal (1993), p. 78 [para. 13].

Counsel:

Jean Teillet and Clement Chartier, Q.C., for the appellant;

P. Mitch McAdam, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard before Krueger, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Battleford, who delivered the following decision on February 2, 2005.