R. v. MacDonald (D.R.) et al., (2001) 300 A.R. 31 (QB)

• Judge: Sullivan, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: June 28, 2001
• Citations: (2001), 300 A.R. 31 (QB);2001 ABQB 796

R. v. MacDonald (D.R.) (2001), 300 A.R. 31 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] A.R. TBEd. OC.085

Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) v. David Robert MacDonald and Sergio Reinaldo Tello (appellants)

(Action No. 0001-0363-S6; 2001 ABQB 796)

Indexed As: R. v. MacDonald (D.R.) et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Calgary

Sullivan, J.

September 19, 2001.

Summary:

The accused were convicted of assault causing bodily harm. The accused appealed their convictions.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the appeals and entered a judicial stay of the charges. The court held that the trial was unfair and there had been a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the trial judge.

Courts - Topic 555

Judges - Powers - To intervene in examination of witnesses - The accused were convicted of assault causing bodily harm - The convictions arose out of an assault during a party outside a recreation centre - The accused appealed, arguing that the trial was unfair, because of interference by the trial judge - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the appeal on this ground, holding that the accused or a reasonable person present throughout the trial, could conclude that the accused had not had a fair trial because of the numerous interventions by the trial judge - See paragraphs 61 to 77.

Courts - Topic 691

Judges - Disqualification - Bias - Reasonable apprehension of bias - The accused were convicted of assault causing bodily harm - The convictions arose out of an assault during a party outside a recreation centre - The accused appealed, on the ground of reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the trial judge - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that although the bias issue was not raised at trial, the court would consider it on appeal where the trial had an appearance of unfairness to the accused - The court considered the trial judge's conduct and determined that there existed a reasonable apprehension of bias - See paragraphs 78 to 97.

Criminal Law - Topic 2817

Jurisdiction - General principles - Procedural errors - Effect of - The accused were allegedly involved in an assault - At trial in Provincial Court, the Crown proceeded on a replacement information and withdrew the original charges - Although the trial judge outlined in general the charges to the accused, the charges were never read to the accused, the Crown never made an election and the accused never entered a plea - The accused were convicted of assault causing bodily harm - The accused appealed - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, as a preliminary matter, discussed the procedural irregularities which had occurred at trial but held that these irregularities did not prejudice either accused and the Provincial Court maintained its jurisdiction - See paragraphs 19 to 36.

Criminal Law - Topic 4302.1

Procedure - Trial judge - Duties and functions of - Respecting adjournments - The accused were convicted of assault causing bodily harm - The convictions arose out of an assault during a party outside a recreation centre - The accused appealed, arguing that the trial was unfair, because the trial judge refused to grant one of the accused (MacDonald) an adjournment to properly retain and instruct counsel and the other accused (Tello) an adjournment to locate a defence witness - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the trial judge did not err in refusing the adjournment for Tello to locate the witness where the evidence of the witness was not material and the witness had not been subpoenaed - The court held however that the trial judge erred in refusing the adjournment requested by MacDonald because counsel had not been given any time to prepare his defence - See paragraphs 52 to 60.

Criminal Law - Topic 4361

Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Directions regarding identification - The accused were convicted of assault causing bodily harm - The convictions arose out of an assault during a party outside a recreation centre - The accused appealed, arguing that the trial judge failed to direct himself properly respecting the eyewitness identification of the accused - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench rejected this ground of appeal - See paragraphs 44 to 49.

Criminal Law - Topic 4574

Procedure - Conduct of trial - Interventions by trial judge - [See Courts - Topic 555 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 7659

Summary conviction proceedings - Appeals - Grounds - Verdict unreasonable or unsupported by evidence - The accused were convicted of assault causing bodily harm - The convictions arose out of an assault during a party outside a recreation centre - The accused appealed, arguing that the verdict was unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench rejected this ground of appeal - The court stated that the verdict was not unreasonable because it was one that a properly instructed jury, acting reasonably could reasonably have rendered - See paragraphs 37 to 43.

Criminal Law - Topic 7663

Summary conviction proceedings - Appeals - Grounds - Bias - [See Courts - Topic 691 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Miaponoose (A.) (1996), 93 O.A.C. 115; 30 O.R.(3d) 419 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. G.W. (1996), 93 O.A.C. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Grosse (P.) (1996), 91 O.A.C. 40; 19 M.V.R.(3d) 197 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1997), 209 N.R. 400; 99 O.A.C. 239 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Antonelli (1977), 38 C.C.C.(2d) 206 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Melnychuk (G.) (2001), 208 Sask.R. 268 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Colbeck (1978), 42 C.C.C.(2d) 117 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Mitchell (J.) (1997), 105 O.A.C. 381; 36 O.R.(3d) 643 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Robert (1973), 13 C.C.C.(2d) 43 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Marcotullio (1978), 39 C.C.C.(2d) 478 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Corbett, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 275; 1 N.R. 258, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Yebes, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 168; 78 N.R. 351, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. P.L.S., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 909; 122 N.R. 321; 90 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 234; 280 A.P.R. 234, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Burke (J.) (No. 3), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 474; 194 N.R. 247; 139 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 147; 433 A.P.R. 147, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. R.W., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 122; 137 N.R. 214; 54 O.A.C. 164, refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Atfield (1983), 42 A.R. 294 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Spatola, [1970] 3 O.R. 74 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Burns (R.H.), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 656; 165 N.R. 374; 42 B.C.A.C. 161; 67 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Morin, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 286; 142 N.R. 141; 131 A.R. 81; 25 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Harper, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 2; 40 N.R. 255, refd to. [para. 47].

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. 51].

R. v. Darville (1956), 116 C.C.C. 113 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. Barrette, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 121; 10 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. Harrison and Alonso (1982), 38 A.R. 304 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1982), 45 N.R. 540; 40 A.R. 260 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. Underwood (G.R.) (1995), 174 A.R. 234; 102 W.A.C. 234 (C.A.), revd. [1998] 1 S.C.R. 77; 221 N.R. 161; 209 A.R. 276; 160 W.A.C. 276, refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. Smith (J.J.) (1989), 35 O.A.C. 301; 52 C.C.C.(3d) 90 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].

R. v. Dunbar and Logan (1982), 138 D.L.R.(3d) 221 (Ont. C.A.) refd to. [para. 56].

R. v. Spataro, [1974] S.C.R. 253, refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. McCallen (J.B.) (1999), 116 O.A.C. 308; 43 O.R.(3d) 56 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 58].

R. v. Sussex Justices; Ex parte McCarthy, [1924] 1 K.B. 256 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 61].

R. v. Torbiak and Campbell (1974), 18 C.C.C.(2d) 229 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Brouillard, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 39; 57 N.R. 168, refd to. [para. 63].

R. v. Valley (1986), 13 O.A.C. 89; 26 C.C.C.(3d) 207 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1986] 1 S.C.R. xiii; 67 N.R. 159; 15 O.A.C. 240, refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Tudor (1990), 9 W.C.B.(2d) 192 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 68].

R. v. McCullough (D.R.), [1998] O.A.C. Uned. 324; 39 W.C.B.(2d) 168 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1999), 241 N.R. 400; 125 O.A.C. 399 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 68].

R. v. Teneycke (R.A.) (1996), 77 B.C.A.C. 138; 126 W.A.C. 138; 108 C.C.C.(3d) 53 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 69].

R. v. Proverbs (1983), 2 O.A.C. 98; 9 C.C.C.(3d) 249 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 69].

R. v. Varga (E.) (1994), 72 O.A.C. 141; 18 O.R.(3d) 784 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 69].

R. v. DiLillo (1991), 6 B.C.A.C. 199; 13 W.A.C. 199 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 69].

R. v. Cook (D.R.) (1996), 85 B.C.A.C. 192; 138 W.A.C. 192; 112 C.C.C.(3d) 508 (C.A.), revd. [1998] 2 S.C.R. 597; 230 N.R. 83; 112 B.C.A.C. 1; 182 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 76].

Taylor and Western Guard Party v. Canadian Human Rights Commission, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 892; 117 N.R. 191, refd to. [para. 78].

R. v. Curragh Inc. et al., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 537; 209 N.R. 252; 159 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 468 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 79].

Twinn et al. v. Canada et al., [1997] 3 F.C. 580; 215 N.R. 133 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 80].

Sawridge Band v. Canada - see Twinn et al. v. Canada et al.

R. v. R.D.S., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 484; 218 N.R. 1; 161 N.S.R.(2d) 241; 477 A.P.R. 241, refd to. [para. 83].

Committee for Justice and Liberty Foundation et al. v. National Energy Board et al., [1978] 1 S.C.R. 369; 9 N.R. 115, refd to. [para. 83].

R. v. Bilmez (1995), 101 C.C.C.(3d) 123 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 91].

R. v. Power (E.), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 601; 165 N.R. 241; 117 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 269; 365 A.P.R. 269, refd to. [para. 98].

R. v. L.E. et al. (1994), 75 O.A.C. 244; 94 C.C.C.(3d) 228 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 99].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Ewaschuk, Eugene G., Criminal Pleadings and Practice in Canada (2nd Ed. 2001), vol. 1, para. 16:2035 [para. 55]; vol. 2, para. 24:1070 [para. 17].

Quigley, Tim, Procedure in Canadian Criminal Law (1997), pp. 539 [para. 81]; 558 [para. 18].

Counsel:

C.E. Rideout, for the respondent;

A.Q. Nguyen, for the appellant, MacDonald;

R. Haslam, for the appellant, Tello.

These appeals were heard on June 28, 2001, before Sullivan, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Calgary, who delivered the following judgment on September 19, 2001.