R. v. Letourneau (P.N.), 2008 ABPC 192

• Judge: Allen, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: June 25, 2008
• Citations: 2008 ABPC 192;(2008), 447 A.R. 218 (PC)

R. v. Letourneau (P.N.) (2008), 447 A.R. 218 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2008] A.R. TBEd. JL.096

Pamela Nicole Letourneau (applicant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) and Constables Mckee, Arthurs, Ewasiuk, Thompson, Maxwell and Neufeld (intervenors) and The Chief of Police, Edmonton Police Service (intervenor)

(060422946P1; 2008 ABPC 192)

Indexed As: R. v. Letourneau (P.N.)

Alberta Provincial Court

Allen, P.C.J.

June 25, 2008.

Summary:

The accused was charged with assaulting a peace officer, mischief and two counts of assault. The accused alleged that the police used excessive force, which violated her rights under ss. 7 (life, liberty and security of the person) and 12 (cruel and unusual treatment or punishment) of the Charter. She sought a stay, acquittal or sentence reduction under s. 24(1). The accused sought disclosure of any complaints made alleging that the officers used excessive force or abused their authority (disciplinary records). She also sought disclosure of whether any of the officers were subject to any alert from the Edmonton Police Service professional standards branch. An alert was not a disciplinary record, but a computer generated record of identifying police officers who might need additional training or alternative approaches or policies. The accused and Crown disagreed over whether disclosure was governed by the lower threshold in Stinchcombe or the higher threshold (two stages) in O'Connor, which applied to third party records.

The Alberta Provincial Court held that the police disciplinary records and the alert records were not first party records subject to disclosure under Stinchcombe. They were third party records that could only be disclosed upon application of the two stage O'Connor threshold test.

Courts - Topic 50

Stare decisis - Authority of judicial decisions - Courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction - General principles - [See Courts - Topic 126 ].

Courts - Topic 126

Stare decisis - Authority of judicial decisions - Courts of superior jurisdiction - Decisions binding on provincial courts - There were conflicting Queen's Bench decisions respecting disclosure of certain records respecting police officers - The Crown argued that Queen's Bench trial decisions were only binding on the Provincial Court if the Queen's Bench judge was sitting on appeal from a Provincial Court decision - The Crown argued that when the Queen's Bench was sitting as a trial court (not on appeal), the Queen's Bench and Provincial Court were courts of concurrent jurisdiction and the Provincial Court was not bound by the Queen's Bench decision - The Alberta Provincial Court stated that "when a Queen's Bench Justice has issued a decision either as a Summary Conviction Appeal Justice or a reviewing Justice in an application for an extraordinary remedy, the Justice is fulfilling an appellate function. In such circumstances, the principle of stare decisis makes the decision of the Queen's Bench Justice binding upon a Provincial Court Judge. However, when the Queen's Bench Justice is sitting as a trial Judge, the Justice is a court of concurrent jurisdiction and the rule of stare decisis does not apply to such decisions. However, as with any judgment issued by a court of coordinate jurisdiction, a Provincial Court Judge must consider the comity principle based upon the principles set out in Hansard [(a) subsequent decisions have affected the validity of the impugned judgment; (b) it is demonstrated that some binding authority in case law, or some relevant statute was not considered; and (c) the judgment was unconsidered, a nisi prius judgment given in circumstances familiar to all trial judges, where the exigencies of the trial require an immediate decision without opportunity to fully consult authority]. In criminal cases, the Provincial Court Judge can refuse to follow the decision if that Judge believes the reasoning is wrong." - See paragraphs 24 to 52.

Courts - Topic 132

Stare decisis - Authority of judicial decisions - Courts of superior jurisdiction - Conflicting decisions of same superior court - [See Courts - Topic 126 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 129

General principles - Rights of accused - Right to discovery or production - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4505 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4505

Procedure - Trial - Special duties of Crown - Duty to disclose evidence prior to trial - An accused charged with assaulting a peace officer, mischief and two counts of assault sought disclosure of (1) any complaints made alleging that the officers used excessive force or abused their authority (disciplinary records) and (2) whether any of the officers were subject to any alert from the Edmonton Police Service professional standards branch (not a disciplinary record, but a computer generated record of identifying police officers who might need additional training or alternative approaches or policies) - The Alberta Provincial Court held that the police disciplinary records and the alert records were not first party records subject to Stinchcombe disclosure - Both were third party records subject to the two stage O'Connor threshold - The court stated that "Stinchcombe mandates the Crown to make disclosure of all fruits of the investigation to the defence absent privilege or when the information is clearly irrelevant. ... information relating to the fruits of the investigation in the hands of the police are constructively in the hands of the Crown for disclosure purposes. ... The police records have been found to be first party records in some situations ... when the information is prepared for the investigation, or is intrinsically linked or connected to the investigation. ... Third party records are records held by someone other than the Crown where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information. ... An accused can apply to a judge for disclosure of records in the possession of third parties through the O'Connor process. This is a two stage process. At the first stage the issue is whether the records will be produced to the judge. The applicant has the onus of demonstrating that the information in those records 'is likely relevant'. ... At the second stage, the judge must balance the privacy of the individual against the accused's interest in full answer and defence. ... police discipline records are third party records with a reasonable expectation of privacy; hence, their production for disclosure purposes can only be ordered pursuant to the O'Connor process." - See paragraphs 54 to 176.

Criminal Law - Topic 5371

Evidence and witnesses - Documents and reports - Documents in possession of Crown - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4505 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5372

Evidence and witnesses - Documents and reports - Documents in possession of third parties (incl. audio tapes etc.) - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4505 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5384

Evidence and witnesses - Documents and reports - Police employment and disciplinary records - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4505 ].

Cases Noticed:

Montgomery v. Edmonton Police Service et al. (1999), 253 A.R. 222 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 6].

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. 17].

R. v. Mack (D.R.) (2008),  458 A.R. 52; 2007 ABQB 182, dist. [para. 19].

R. v. Lee (T.R) et al. (2007), 426 A.R. 315 (Q.B.), dist. [para. 19].

R. v. Hoeving (J.L.), [2007] A.R. Uned. 506 (Q.B.), not folld. [para. 19].

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, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Chaplin (D.A.) et al., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 727; 178 N.R. 118; 162 A.R. 272; 83 W.A.C. 272, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. McCarthy (R.M.R.) (2008), 439 A.R. 321; 2008 ABQB 14, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. McCarthy (R.M.R.) (2008), 439 A.R. 365; 2008 ABQB 215, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. McNeil (L.) (2006), 218 O.A.C. 1 (C.A.), leave to appeal granted (2007), 374 N.R. 398 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Wolf, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 107; 2 N.R. 415, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Beaney, [1970] 1 C.C.C. 48 (Ont. Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Active Trading Ltd. (1975), 26 C.C.C.(2d) 412 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Cotterhill (1977), 3 Alta. L.R.(2d) 37 (Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Rybansky (1982), 66 C.C.C.(2d) 459 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Hummel (1987), 36 C.C.C.(3d) 8 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Smith (1988), 44 C.C.C.(3d) 385 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Doyle (1992), 10 O.R.(3d) 439 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Vu (H.M.) (2004), 200 B.C.A.C. 59; 327 W.A.C. 59; 184 C.C.C.(3d) 545 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Nguyen - see R. v. Vu (H.M.).

R. v. Unnah, [2007] O.J. No. 101 (C.J.), refd to. [para. 39].

Hansard Spruce Mills Ltd., Re, [1954] 4 D.L.R. 590 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 43].

Holmes v. Jarrett (1993), 68 O.R.(3d) 667 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 44].

United Taxi Drivers' Fellowship of Southern Alberta et al. v. Calgary (City) (1998), 217 A.R. 1; 60 Alta. L.R.(3d) 165 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Nguyen (T.T.) et al. (2001), 294 A.R. 201 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Kanak (D.K.) (2003), 340 A.R. 286; 178 C.C.C.(3d) 129 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Koziolek (H.) (1999), 92 O.T.C. 188; 40 M.V.R.(3d) 304 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Northern Electric Co. (1955), 111 C.C.C. 241 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Kartna (1979), 2 M.V.R. 259 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 46].

Huddersfield Police Authority v. Watson, [1947] 1 K.B. 842 (D.C.), refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Taylor, [1950] 2 All E.R. 170 (C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Egger (J.H.), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 451; 153 N.R. 272; 141 A.R. 81; 46 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 58].

R. v. Mills (B.J.), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 668; 248 N.R. 101; 244 A.R. 201; 209 W.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 76].

R. v. Campbell (J.) and Shirose (S.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 565; 237 N.R. 86; 119 O.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 82].

R. v. Regan (G.A.), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 297; 282 N.R. 1; 201 N.S.R.(2d) 63; 629 A.P.R. 63, refd to. [para. 85].

Krieger et al. v. Law Society of Alberta, [2002] 3 S.C.R. 372; 293 N.R. 201; 312 A.R. 275; 281 W.A.C. 275, refd to. [para. 87].

R. v. L.A.T. (1993), 64 O.A.C. 380; 84 C.C.C.(3d) 90 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 90].

R. v. Vokey (W.J.) (1992), 102 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 275; 323 A.P.R. 275; 72 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 90].

R. v. Antinello (J.J.) (1995), 165 A.R. 122; 89 W.A.C. 122; 97 C.C.C.(3d) 126 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 90].

R. v. Siemens (F.) (1998), 209 A.R. 375; 160 W.A.C. 375; 122 C.C.C.(3d) 552 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 90].

R. v. Gagne (1998), 131 C.C.C.(3d) 444 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 90].

R. v. Greganti (S.), [2000] O.T.C. 30; 142 C.C.C.(3d) 31 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 90].

R. v. Scurr (J.L.) et al. (2008), 441 A.R. 203; 2008 ABQB 127, refd to. [para. 92].

R. v. R.L.F. (2003), 350 A.R. 310 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 94].

R. v. Perry (S.R.) (2002), 225 Sask.R. 1 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 95].

R. v. Qappik (P.), [2005] Nunavut Cases 18; 2005 NUCJ 18, refd to. [para. 96].

R. v. Van Duzen (2006), 214 C.C.C.(3d) 247 (Ont. C.J.), refd to. [para. 97].

R. v. Smith (M.G.) (2007), 419 A.R. 179 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 98].

R. v. Bottineau (2005), 32 C.R.(6th) 70 (Ont. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 101].

R. v. Horzempa (J.G.) (2005), 199 Man.R.(2d) 84 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 101].

R. v. Trotta, [2004] O.J. No. 2439 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 107].

R. v. Gingras (1992), 120 A.R. 300; 8 W.A.C. 300; 71 C.C.C.(3d) 53 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 123].

R. v. Shepherd, [1998] O.J. No. 6427 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 124].

Johnson v. McKay et al. (1999), 187 Sask.R. 294; 1999 SKQB 279, refd to. [para. 125].

Regina (City) Police Service v. McKay - see Johnson v. McKay et al.

R. v. Small, [2001] O.J. No. 2231 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 126].

R. v. Toms, [2000] O.J. No. 5612 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 127].

R. v. Schmidt (B.S.) (2001), 146 B.C.A.C. 111; 239 W.A.C. 111; 151 C.C.C.(3d) 74 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 128].

R. v. Szczerba (K.M.) et al., [2002] 11 W.W.R. 482; 321 A.R. 102 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 129].

R. v. Keirsted (J.P.) et al., [2004] A.R. Uned. 472 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 130].

R. v. Khan (2004), 13 M.V.R.(5th) 244 (Ont. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 131].

R. v. Duguay (R.) (2004), 285 N.B.R.(2d) 365; 744 A.P.R. 365 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 133].

R. v. Fitch (M.J.) (2006), 279 Sask.R. 310; 372 W.A.C. 310; 210 C.C.C.(3d) 205 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 134].

R. v. Coppola, [2007] O.J. No. 1623 (C.J.), refd to. [para. 135].

R. v. Coopsammy (D.O.) (2008), 445 A.R. 160; 2008 ABQB 266, refd to. [para. 138].

Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291, refd to. [para. 144].

R. v. Pohoretsky, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 945; 75 N.R. 1; 47 Man.R.(2d) 295, refd to. [para. 144].

R. v. Dyment, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 417; 89 N.R. 249; 73 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 13; 229 A.P.R. 13, refd to. [para. 144].

R. v. Plant (R.S.), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 281; 157 N.R. 321; 145 A.R. 104; 55 W.A.C. 104, refd to. [para. 145].

R. v. Andiruchow (A.) et al. (2008), 449 A.R. 218; 2008 ABPC 133, refd to. [para. 157].

R. v. Lyons, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 309; 80 N.R. 161; 82 N.S.R.(2d) 271; 207 A.P.R. 271, refd to. [para. 165].

R. v. Harrer (H.M.), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 562; 186 N.R. 329; 64 B.C.A.C. 161; 105 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 165].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Paciocco, David, Unpacking Access to Police Disciplinary Records (2007), 46 C.R.(6th) 227, p. 238 [para. 121].

Renke, Wayne, Application for Third Party Records: The Relationship of the O'Connor Procedure to Other Application Procedures (2002), 40 Alta. L. Rev. 593, generally [para. 164].

Counsel:

T. Engel and L. Trach, for the applicant;

D. Sullivan, for the Crown;

K. Haymond, for the intervenor, Chief of Police, Edmonton Police Service;

P. Nugent and R. Khullar, for the intervenors, Constables Mckee, Arthurs, Ewasiuk, Thompson, Maxwell and Neufeld.

This matter was heard at Edmonton, Alberta, before Allen, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on June 25, 2008.