R. v. Luipasco (W.) et al., 2006 ABPC 223

• Judge: Lefever, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: August 17, 2006
• Citations: 2006 ABPC 223;(2006), 408 A.R. 168 (PC)

R. v. Luipasco (W.) (2006), 408 A.R. 168 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2006] A.R. TBEd. AU.112

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. William Luipasco, Steven Dimock and Scott Hutton (applicants)

(A04492994K; A04492983K; A04492972K; 2006 ABPC 223)

Indexed As: R. v. Luipasco (W.) et al.

Alberta Provincial Court

Lefever, P.C.J.

August 17, 2006.

Summary:

The Crown withdrew charges against the applicants under the Gaming and Liquor Act. The applicants sought costs against the Crown pursuant to s. 24(1) of the Charter to remedy an alleged breach of their disclosure rights by police under s. 7 of the Charter. The Crown raised the issue of the court's jurisdiction to hear the application.

The Alberta Provincial Court held that it had jurisdiction to hear the costs application, so as to determine whether the evidence supported the contention that the applicants' s. 7 rights were breached, and whether such a breach, if established, warranted an order of costs against the Crown.

Civil Rights - Topic 8380.7

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Costs - The Crown withdrew charges against the applicants under the Gaming and Liquor Act - The applicants sought costs against the Crown pursuant to s. 24(1) of the Charter to remedy an alleged breach of their disclosure rights by police under s. 7 of the Charter - The Crown raised the issue of the court's jurisdiction to hear the application - The court had heard voir dire evidence relevant to the application before the charges were withdrawn - The Alberta Provincial Court held that it had jurisdiction to hear the costs application, so as to determine whether the evidence supported the contention that the applicants' s. 7 rights were breached, and whether such a breach, if established, warranted an order of costs against the Crown - The police and Crown were one entity for the limited purpose of disclosure - The court had jurisdiction to hear the costs application, even though the facts might also lend themselves to supporting a civil action for malicious prosecution.

Courts - Topic 2013.1

Jurisdiction - General principles - Criminal cases - Costs - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8380.7 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4591

Procedure - Costs - Against the Crown - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8380.7 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Robinson (C.J.) (1999), 250 A.R. 201; 213 W.A.C. 201; 142 C.C.C.(3d) 303 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 1].

R. v. Stinchcombe (1991), 130 N.R. 277; 120 A.R. 161; 8 W.A.C. 161; 68 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. McKay, [2003] A.J. No. 807 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Derose (A.S.) et al. (2002), 326 A.R. 241 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Derose (A.S.) et al. (2002), 313 A.R. 47 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Fach (C.) (2004), 192 O.A.C. 104 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Sipar, [2005] O.J. No. 2294 (C.J.), refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. 974649 Ontario Inc. et al. (2001), 279 N.R. 345; 154 O.A.C. 345 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Nest (D.) et al. (2004), 370 A.R. 201 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 26].

Counsel:

Domina Hussain, for the respondent;

Tom Engel, for the applicants.

This matter was heard by Lefever, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, who delivered the following reasons for judgment on August 17, 2006.