R. v. MacDonald (G.J.), 2007 PESCTD 29

• Judge: Taylor, J.
• Case Date: February 22, 2007
• Jurisdiction: Prince Edward Island
• Citations: 2007 PESCTD 29;(2007), 270 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 288 (PEITD)

R. v. MacDonald (G.J.) (2007), 270 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 288 (PEITD);

    822 A.P.R. 288

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2007] Nfld. & P.E.I.R. TBEd. AU.017

Her Majesty the Queen (appellant) v. Gerard Joseph MacDonald (respondent)

(S1 GC-556; 2007 PESCTD 29)

Indexed As: R. v. MacDonald (G.J.)

Prince Edward Island Supreme Court

Trial Division

Taylor, J.

August 20, 2007.

Summary:

The accused was charged with impaired driving. The accused moved for a stay of proceedings on the ground that he had not obtained full disclosure of the Crown's evidence before trial.

The Prince Edward Island Provincial Court allowed the motion and stayed the proceedings. The Crown appealed.

The Prince Edward Island Supreme Court, Trial Division, allowed the appeal and ordered the trial to continue.

Civil Rights - Topic 3133

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Right of accused to make full answer and defence - Constable Dawson was out on patrol with a civilian "ride along" - He noticed a vehicle and decided to stop it to show the "ride along" a roadside check for driver's licence, registration and insurance under the Highway Traffic Act - The Constable noticed indicia of impairment from the driver (the accused) and made a breathalyzer demand - The accused was charged with impaired driving - The accused moved for a stay of proceedings on the ground that he had not obtained full disclosure of the Crown's evidence before trial - The accused asserted that the Crown had not disclosed the presence of the "ride along" and Constable Dawson's reliance on s. 253 of the Highway Traffic Act as one of his reasons to stop the accused - The trial judge allowed the motion and stayed the proceedings - The Crown appealed - The Prince Edward Island Supreme Court, Trial Division, allowed the appeal - The Crown ought to have disclosed the information - However, these circumstances did not justify a stay of proceedings because it was not known if the ride-along had any material evidence to give, the case had not started yet and the accused had not suffered any prejudice which could not have been remedied by an adjournment - The court ordered full disclosure and continuation of the trial.

Civil Rights - Topic 8374

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Stay of proceedings - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3133 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4505

Procedure - Trial - Special duties of Crown - Duty to disclose evidence prior to trial - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3133 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Ladouceur, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1257; 108 N.R. 171; 40 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Simpson (R.) (1993), 60 O.A.C. 327; 79 C.C.C.(3d) 482 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Griffin (J.M.) (1996), 146 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 142; 456 A.P.R. 142; 111 C.C.C.(3d) 490 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Hufsky (1988), 84 N.R. 365; 27 O.A.C. 103; 40 C.C.C.(3d) 398 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. McKenna (B.D.) (1996), 146 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 64; 456 A.P.R. 64 (P.E.I.C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. O'Connor (H.P.) (1995), 191 N.R. 1; 68 B.C.A.C. 1; 112 W.A.C. 1; 103 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Dixon (S.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 244; 222 N.R. 243; 166 N.S.R.(2d) 241; 498 A.P.R. 241, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Aitken (D.R.) (1995), 129 Sask.R. 66 (Prov. Ct.), affd. (1995), 138 Sask.R. 187 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Duke (D.J.) (1995), 159 N.B.R.(2d) 372; 409 A.P.R. 372 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Saunders (D.) (1996), 179 N.B.R.(2d) 389; 455 A.P.R. 389 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Donaldson (D.) (2006), 281 Sask.R. 105 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 28].

Counsel:

Valerie Moore, for the appellant;

John K. Mitchell, Q.C., for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on February 22, 2007, at Charlottetown, P.E.I., by Taylor, J., of the Prince Edward Island Supreme Court, Trial Division, who delivered the following judgment on August 20, 2007.