R. v. Loutitt (E.S.),

• Judge: Germain, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Citation: 2011 ABQB 545,(2011), 527 A.R. 212 (QB)
• Date: 10 August 2011

R. v. Loutitt (E.S.) (2011), 527 A.R. 212 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2011] A.R. TBEd. SE.095

Her Majesty The Queen (Crown/respondent) v. Erok Scott Loutitt (accused/appellant)

(100741925S1; 2011 ABQB 545)

Indexed As: R. v. Loutitt (E.S.)

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Ft. McMurray

Germain, J.

September 16, 2011.

Summary:

The accused failed to appear in court on an impaired driving charge. Later that day, when he realized that he forgot to appear, he turned himself in to the R.C.M.P. The trial judge convicted the accused of failing to appear (Criminal Code, s. 145(5)). The accused appealed.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the appeal and substituted an acquittal. Failing to appear was not a strict liability offence. The offence required an intentional failure to appear.

Criminal Law - Topic 39

General principles - Mens rea or intention - Lack of knowledge or belief - [See Criminal Law - Topic 3269].

Criminal Law - Topic 3269

Compelling appearance, detention and release - Appearance and appearance notice - Failure to appear - Defences - The accused failed to appear in court on an impaired driving charge - Later that day, when he realized that he forgot to appear, he turned himself in to the R.C.M.P. - He was charged with failing to appear - It was agreed that the accused genuinely forgot, so no explanation or excuse for his forgetfulness was provided - The trial judge convicted the accused - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the accused's appeal and substituted an acquittal - The court stated that "the offence of failure to appear ... is not a strict liability offence but instead an offence that requires a mental element. That mental element is deliberate failure to appear, recklessness or wilful blindness" - Given the agreed statement of facts (accused genuinely forgot), the accused was not required, in this case, to establish that forgetting his court date was neither reckless nor wilfully blind.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Josephie (L.), [2010] Nunavut Cases Uned. 7; 2010 NUCJ 7, refd to. [para. 7].

Housen v. Nikolaisen et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235; 286 N.R. 1; 219 Sask.R. 1; 272 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 33, refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Eby (M.N.) (2007), 415 A.R. 273; 2007 ABPC 81, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Manuel (R.M.) (2000), 182 N.S.R.(2d) 193; 563 A.P.R. 193; 74 C.R.R.(2d) 75 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Blazevic (M.) (1997), 31 O.T.C. 10; 34 W.C.B.(2d) 282 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Mullin (2007), 13 C.R.(6th) 54; 2003 YKTC 26, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Custance (J.D.) (2005), 192 Man.R.(2d) 69; 340 W.A.C. 69; 2005 NBCA 23, leave to appeal denied (2005), 346 N.R. 195 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Legere (K.R.) (1995), 77 O.A.C. 265; 22 O.R.(3d) 89 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Smith (P.) (2005), 64 W.C.B.(2d) 651 (Ont. Sup. Ct.), revsd. (2008), 233 O.A.C. 145; 2008 ONCA 101, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Bender (1976), 30 C.C.C.(2d) 496 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Hutchinson (K.) (1994), 160 A.R. 58; 25 W.C.B.(2d) 51 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Nedlin (J.), [2005] Northwest Terr. Cases 11; 32 C.R.(6th) 361; 2005 NWTTC 11, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Stuart (1981), 58 C.C.C.(2d) 203; 5 W.C.B. 506 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Hurlbert (G.D.) (2003), 340 A.R. 192; 2003 ABPC 54, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Weishar (P.), [2003] O.T.C. 719; 13 C.R.(6th) 59 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Fitzgerald (J.E.) (1995), 129 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 174; 402 A.P.R. 174; 27 W.C.B.(2d) 82 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Brown (G.D.) (2008), 445 A.R. 211; 2008 ABPC 128, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Stanny (W.), [2004] A.R. Uned. 851; 2004 ABPC 149, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Ludlow (R.J.) (1999), 125 B.C.A.C. 194; 204 W.A.C. 194; 136 C.C.C.(3d) 460; 1999 BCCA 365, disagreed with [para. 14].

R. v. Osmond (D.G.) (2006), 248 N.S.R.(2d) 221; 789 A.P.R. 221; 2006 NSPC 52, disagreed with [para. 14].

R. v. Parent-Quinn, [1995] O.J. No. 4668 (Prov. Div.), disagreed with [para. 14].

R. v. Preshaw et al. (1976), 31 C.C.C.(2d) 456; 35 C.R.N.S. 331 (Ont. Co. Ct.), disagreed with [para. 14].

R. v. Postama, [1982] O.J. No. 682 (Prov. Ct.), disagreed with [para. 14].

R. v. Bremmer (D.D.), [2006] A.R. Uned. 304; 79 W.C.B.(2d) 166; 2006 ABPC 93, disagreed with [para. 14].

R. v. Sault Ste. Marie (City), [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1299; 21 N.R. 295; 85 D.L.R.(3d) 161, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Seymour (J.), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 252; 197 N.R. 81; 76 B.C.A.C. 1; 125 W.A.C. 1; 135 D.L.R.(4th) 225, refd to. [para. 18].

Counsel:

Steven Hinkley, for the Crown/respondent;

Graham M. Johnson, for the appellant.

This appeal was heard on August 10, 2011, before Germain, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Ft. McMurray, whose following oral memorandum of judgment was filed on September 16, 2011.