R. v. Legerton (M.A.) et al., (2014) 583 A.R. 8 (QB)
| Judge | Yamauchi, J. |
| Court | Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada) |
| Case Date | January 20, 2014 |
| Citations | (2014), 583 A.R. 8 (QB);2014 ABQB 162 |
R. v. Legerton (M.A.) (2014), 583 A.R. 8 (QB)
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite: [2014] A.R. TBEd. MY.042
Her Majesty the Queen (Crown/respondent) v. Myrch Alexander Legerton, Dennis Anambono Gambilla and Myriam Mamouni (accused/applicants)
(100386366Q1; 2014 ABQB 162)
Indexed As: R. v. Legerton (M.A.) et al.
Alberta Court of Queen's Bench
Judicial District of Calgary
Yamauchi, J.
March 19, 2014.
Summary:
The three co-accused were charged with a number of offences involving the possession and importation of drugs into Canada. The alleged offences occurred on March 29, 2010, and the trial commenced on May 6, 2013. The trial was not completed during the time scheduled, but was expected to conclude on May 23, 2014. The accused applied for relief under the Charter (i.e., a judicial stay of proceedings), alleging a breach of the right to be tried within a reasonable time contrary to s. 11(b) of the Charter.
The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the applications.
Civil Rights - Topic 3262
Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Speedy trial - Accused's right to - Waiver of right - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench discussed the issue of waiver in the context of the right to be tried within a reasonable time (Charter, s. 11(b)) - See paragraphs 41 to 51.
Civil Rights - Topic 3265
Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Speedy trial - Accused's right to - What constitutes "within a reasonable time" - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench reviewed the general principles applicable in determining whether there had been an unreasonable delay (Charter, s. 11(b)) - The court also discussed the principles applicable in determining whether a delay in disclosure by the Crown had unreasonably delayed a trial - See paragraphs 10 to 15.
Civil Rights - Topic 3265
Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Speedy trial - Accused's right to - What constitutes "within a reasonable time" - Three co-accused were charged with offences involving the possession and importation of drugs into Canada - The date of the alleged offences was March 29, 2010, and the trial commenced on May 6, 2013 - Between March 31, 2010, the date the information was sworn, and May 23, 2014, the date on which the trial was anticipated to conclude, was about 49 months - The accused alleged a breach of the right to be tried within a reasonable time (Charter, s. 11(b)) - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, after considering the Morin factors, dismissed the applications - Although there was late disclosure by the Crown, it had minimal effect on the accused's s. 11(b) Charter rights - See paragraphs 40 to 129.
Cases Noticed:
R. v. Askov, Hussey, Melo and Gugliotta, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1199; 113 N.R. 241; 42 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 10].
R. v. Morin, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 771; 134 N.R. 321; 53 O.A.C. 241; 71 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 10].
R. v. Godin (M.), [2009] 2 S.C.R. 3; 389 N.R. 1; 252 O.A.C. 377; 2009 SCC 26, refd to. [para. 10].
R. v. Smith (M.H.), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1120; 102 N.R. 205; 63 Man.R.(2d) 81; 52 C.C.C.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 11].
R. v. Conway, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1659; 96 N.R. 241; 34 O.A.C. 165; 49 C.C.C.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 13].
R. v. Bennett (1991), 46 O.A.C. 99; 64 C.C.C.(3d) 449 (C.A.), affd. (1992), 138 N.R. 388; 54 O.A.C. 350; 74 C.C.C.(3d) 384 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 13].
R. v. Slaney (P.) (1992), 99 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 141; 315 A.P.R. 141; 75 C.C.C.(3d) 385 (Nfld. C.A.), affd. [1993] 2 S.C.R. 228; 153 N.R. 153; 106 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 137; 334 A.P.R. 137, refd to. [para. 13].
R. v. Koruz et al. (1992), 125 A.R. 161; 14 W.A.C. 161; 72 C.C.C.(3d) 353 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].
R. v. Stevens (A.L.) et al. (2013), 564 A.R. 92; 2013 ABQB 342, refd to. [para. 18].
R. v. Ghavami (N.) (2010), 284 B.C.A.C. 286; 481 W.A.C. 286; 253 C.C.C.(3d) 74; 2010 BCCA 126, refd to. [para. 19].
R. v. Walker (N.) (2013), 423 Sask.R. 125; 588 W.A.C. 125; 2013 SKCA 95, dist. [para. 23].
R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326; 130 N.R. 277; 120 A.R. 161; 8 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 25].
R. v. Durocher (C.) (2012), 550 A.R. 386; 72 Alta. L.R.(5th) 66; 2012 ABQB 705, refd to. [para. 27].
R. v. Rahey, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 588; 75 N.R. 81; 78 N.S.R.(2d) 183; 193 A.P.R. 183; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 43].
R. v. Heikel and Sutton (1992), 125 A.R. 298; 14 W.A.C. 298; 72 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 1992 ABCA 142, refd to. [para. 46].
R. v. Brassard (S.), [1993] 4 S.C.R. 287; 160 N.R. 247; 58 Q.A.C. 261; 85 C.C.C.(3d) 287, refd to. [para. 49].
R. v. Sapara (J.) (2001), 277 A.R. 357; 242 W.A.C. 357; 2001 ABCA 59, leave to appeal denied, [2001] 2 S.C.R. xii; 275 N.R. 197; 293 A.R. 291; 257 W.A.C. 291, refd to. [para. 60].
R. v. Farewell (R.K.) (2008), 250 B.C.A.C. 133; 416 W.A.C. 133; 229 C.C.C.(3d) 17; 2008 BCCA 9, refd to. [para. 62].
R. v. Whylie (C.) (2006), 208 O.A.C. 247; 207 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 62].
R. v. L.G. (2007), 229 O.A.C. 89; 2007 CarswellOnt 5999 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 62].
R. v. Rizk (M.) (1999), 97 O.T.C. 193 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 62].
R. v. Martin, 2002 BCSC 1242, refd to. [para. 62].
R. v. Moreno (H.F.) et al., [1999] B.C.T.C. Uned. 334 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 62].
R. v. MacIntosh (E.F.) (2011), 310 N.S.R.(2d) 274; 983 A.P.R. 274; 281 C.C.C.(3d) 291; 2011 NSCA 111, affd. (2013), 443 N.R. 32; 329 N.S.R.(2d) 395; 1042 A.P.R. 395; 296 C.C.C.(3d) 480; 2013 SCC 23, refd to. [para. 92].
R. v. Anderson (T.) (2013), 423 Sask.R. 61; 588 W.A.C. 61; 2013 SKCA 92, refd to. [para. 99].
R. v. Caines (J.M.) et al., [2011] A.R. Uned. 556; 43 Alta. L.R.(5th) 226; 2011 ABQB 82, refd to. [para. 123].
R. v. Gordon (S.M.), [2012] O.A.C. Uned. 432; 103 W.C.B.(2d) 398; 2012 ONCA 533, refd to. [para. 125].
R. v. Côté (A.), [2011] 3 S.C.R. 215; 421 N.R. 112; 2011 SCC 46, refd to. [para. 126].
Statutes Noticed:
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 11(b) [para. 3].
Counsel:
Frank Polak, Shirley Jackson and Alissa Webber (Public Prosecution Service of Canada), for the Crown;
Jim A Edgett (Savage Oykhman), for the accused, Myrch Alexander Legerton;
Ian D McKay (Evans, Fagan, McKay), for the accused, Dennis Anambono Gambilla;
David G Chow (Roulston Chow), for the accused, Myriam Mamouni.
These applications were heard on a voir dire held from January 20, 2014 through January 31, 2014, before Yamauchi, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Calgary, who delivered the following decision on March 19, 2014.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R. v. Gambilla (D.A.) et al., (2015) 604 A.R. 203 (QB)
...might affect the Accused Persons' right to make full answer and defence. More bluntly, the applications were premature: R v Legerton , 2014 ABQB 162 (CanLII) [ Legerton ] at para 21. 3. Factual Background [266] In his brief that led to this Court's decision in Legerton , Gambilla's counsel ......
-
R v Mamouni, 2017 ABCA 347
...a stay of proceedings on the basis of s 11(b) of the Charter well into the trial (prior to his family emergency situation): see ruling at 2014 ABQB 162, 583 AR 8 .[4] The appellant secondly submits that, during the trial, there were a number of instances of delay in Crown disclosure, some ......
-
R. v. Howe (D.J.) et al., (2016) 375 N.S.R.(2d) 233 (SC)
...was affirmed more recently by the Alberta Court of Appeal in R v Sapara , 2001 ABCA 59 at para. 28, and by Yamauchi J in R. v. Legerton , 2014 ABQB 162 at paras. 49-51. 52 I am satisfied that, absent evidence to the contrary, agreement between counsel to suggested dates should not be charac......
-
R. v. Kelleher (B.J.), [2015] A.R. Uned. 798
...2410. Court [23] I have considered the following cases: R. v. Dunn , 2014 ABPC 97; R. v. Naslund , 2014 ABPC 35; and R. v. Legerton , 2014 ABQB 162. [24] The Supreme Court of Canada has considered unreasonable delay in a number of decisions: R. v. Askov , (1990) 2 SCR 1199, 1990 CarswellOnt......
-
R. v. Gambilla (D.A.) et al., (2015) 604 A.R. 203 (QB)
...might affect the Accused Persons' right to make full answer and defence. More bluntly, the applications were premature: R v Legerton , 2014 ABQB 162 (CanLII) [ Legerton ] at para 21. 3. Factual Background [266] In his brief that led to this Court's decision in Legerton , Gambilla's counsel ......
-
R v Mamouni, 2017 ABCA 347
...a stay of proceedings on the basis of s 11(b) of the Charter well into the trial (prior to his family emergency situation): see ruling at 2014 ABQB 162, 583 AR 8 .[4] The appellant secondly submits that, during the trial, there were a number of instances of delay in Crown disclosure, some ......
-
R. v. Howe (D.J.) et al., (2016) 375 N.S.R.(2d) 233 (SC)
...was affirmed more recently by the Alberta Court of Appeal in R v Sapara , 2001 ABCA 59 at para. 28, and by Yamauchi J in R. v. Legerton , 2014 ABQB 162 at paras. 49-51. 52 I am satisfied that, absent evidence to the contrary, agreement between counsel to suggested dates should not be charac......
-
R. v. Kelleher (B.J.), [2015] A.R. Uned. 798
...2410. Court [23] I have considered the following cases: R. v. Dunn , 2014 ABPC 97; R. v. Naslund , 2014 ABPC 35; and R. v. Legerton , 2014 ABQB 162. [24] The Supreme Court of Canada has considered unreasonable delay in a number of decisions: R. v. Askov , (1990) 2 SCR 1199, 1990 CarswellOnt......