R. v. Leask (C.R.), 2005 SKQB 315

• Judge: Zarzeczny, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: July 13, 2005
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2005 SKQB 315;(2005), 268 Sask.R. 135 (QB)

R. v. Leask (C.R.) (2005), 268 Sask.R. 135 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2005] Sask.R. TBEd. AU.012

Her Majesty the Queen (appellant) v. Craig Ronald Leask (defendant/respondent)

(2004 Q.B.C.A. 78; 2005 SKQB 315)

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

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

Zarzeczny, J.

July 13, 2005.

Summary:

The accused was charged with assault, breach of an undertaking and failure to appear. The charges were dismissed. The Crown appealed.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench allowed the appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 4435

Procedure - Verdicts, discharges and dismissals - Dismissal - General - The accused was charged with assault, breach of an undertaking and failure to appear - When the accused appeared for trial on November 2, 2004, Crown counsel applied for an adjournment because he could not locate the alleged victim - The trial judge granted the adjournment - On December 2, 2004, the Crown asked for a second adjournment - The trial judge was prepared to grant the adjournment if the Crown agreed that the accused would be released from custody on an undertaking to appear - The Crown disagreed - The trial judge ultimately refused the requested adjournment and dismissed the charges - The Crown appealed - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench allowed the appeal - The real reason for the ultimate refusal of the Crown's application for adjournment and the dismissal of the charges was not the Crown's inability to proceed for a second time but rather the Crown's unwillingness to accede to and co-operate with the trial judge's view of the appropriate conditions under which the accused was to be released from custody - The trial judge did not exercise the discretion which he had judicially nor were the reasons for the refusal of the adjournment well-founded in law.

Criminal Law - Topic 4485

Procedure - Trial - Adjournments - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4435 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Barrette, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 121; 10 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Rak (G.) and Rak (O.) (1999), 172 Sask.R. 301; 185 W.A.C. 301 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Ironchild (1984), 30 Sask.R. 269 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

Association of Stop Construction of Rafferty Alameda Project Inc. v. Saskatchewan (Minister of Environment and Public Safety) and Souris Basin Development Authority (1988), 68 Sask.R. 52 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Kanagarajah (1980), 4 Sask.R. 149 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

Counsel:

Paul Goldstein, for the Crown;

No one appeared for the accused.

This appeal was heard by Zarzeczny, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Saskatoon, who delivered the following judgment on July 13, 2005.