R. v. Mellquist (R.K.), (2014) 439 Sask.R. 206 (PC)

• Judge: Kovatch, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: March 03, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2014), 439 Sask.R. 206 (PC);2014 SKPC 48

R. v. Mellquist (R.K.) (2014), 439 Sask.R. 206 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] Sask.R. TBEd. MR.013

Her Majesty the Queen v. Ryan K. Mellquist

(Information No. 24378654; 2014 SKPC 48)

Indexed As: R. v. Mellquist (R.K.)

Saskatchewan Provincial Court

Kovatch, P.C.J.

March 3, 2014.

Summary:

The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood-alcohol content over the legal limit. The Crown objected to the sufficiency of the accused's Charter notice and sought particulars as to what the Charter argument was.

The Saskatchewan Provincial Court found that the Charter notice did not advise of or place any Charter issue before the court for adjudication. Unless this was remedied in a timely and appropriate fashion, the court would decline to adjudicate upon any Charter issue or grant any remedy under the Charter.

Civil Rights - Topic 8587.1

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Practice - Notice - General - Mellquist was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood-alcohol content over the legal limit - His counsel provided written notice requesting a remedy under s. 24(2) of the Charter on the grounds that Mellquist's ss. 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 Charter rights were violated - The notice contained a number of legal statements to the effect that the onus was on the Crown to establish reasonable grounds for the arrest and lawful demands - The Crown objected to the sufficiency of the Charter notice - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court found that the Charter notice was completely inadequate and failed to meet the legal requirements - It was so general that it amounted to no notice of anything except that the defence intended to make a Charter argument - There was no indication of the factual or evidentiary basis to found the Charter application - The Crown was completely unable to ascertain the case it had to meet - If a Charter voir dire proceeded on the basis of this notice, both the Crown and the court would learn for the first time the factual basis of the application when the evidence was presented in court - The notice did not advise of or place any Charter issue before the court for adjudication - Unless this was remedied in a timely and appropriate fashion, the court would decline to adjudicate upon any Charter issue or grant any Charter remedy.

Civil Rights - Topic 8587.1

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Practice - Notice - General - Mellquist was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood-alcohol content over the legal limit - His counsel provided written notice requesting a remedy under s. 24(2) of the Charter on the grounds that Mellquist's ss. 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 Charter rights were violated - The notice contained a number of legal statements to the effect that the onus was on the Crown to establish reasonable grounds for the arrest and lawful demands - The Crown objected to the sufficiency of the Charter notice - Defence counsel attempted to justify the form of the notice on the basis that he wanted to leave everything open to argue that the Crown had not proved its case - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court noted that other courts had specifically disapproved of this very practice - One could not use an inappropriate or unacceptable practice of procedure to attempt to justify a vague notice - See paragraphs 5 to 8.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Ginter (D.A.) (2011), 378 Sask.R. 142; 2011 SKPC 83, folld. [para. 2].

R. v. Dwernychuk (M.K.) (1992), 135 A.R. 31; 33 W.A.C. 31; 1992 ABCA 316, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Kutynec (1992), 52 O.A.C. 59 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Loveman (1992), 52 O.A.C. 94 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Pelletier (J.G.) (1995), 128 Sask.R. 214; 85 W.A.C. 214 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Manitopyes (J.V.) et al. (2013), 416 Sask.R. 254; 2013 SKQB 112, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Wilson (S.R.G.) (2013), 427 Sask.R. 63; 591 W.A.C. 63; 2013 SKCA 128, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Croft (J.C.), [2013] A.R. Uned. 630; 2013 ABQB 604, dist. [para. 19].

R. v. Yates (B.M.) (2012), 402 Sask.R. 135; 2012 SKPC 104, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Nome (T.M.) (2010), 362 Sask.R. 241; 500 W.A.C. 241; 2010 SKCA 147, refd to. [para. 22].

Counsel:

Rob Parker, for the Crown;

Merv Nidesh, Q.C., for the accused.

This matter was heard at Assiniboia, Saskatchewan, before Kovatch, P.C.J., of the Saskatchewan Provincial Court, who delivered the following decision on March 3, 2014.