R. v. Milberg et al.,

• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Judge: Cory, Robins and Finlayson, JJ.A.
• Citation: (1987), 20 O.A.C. 75 (CA)
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Date: 14 April 1987

R. v. Milberg (1987), 20 O.A.C. 75 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Harvey Milberg, Mario Calcos, Anthony Hambleton and Pat Waller

Indexed As: R. v. Milberg et al.

Ontario Court of Appeal

Cory, Robins and Finlayson, JJ.A.

April 14, 1987.

Summary:

The accused were charged with keeping a common bawdy-house. On a motion by the accused following their arraignment but before plea, the trial judge quashed the information for non-compliance with s. 510(3) of the Criminal Code. Section 510(3) required the information to contain sufficient detail to give the accused reasonable information with respect to the act or omission to be proved against them and to identify the transaction involved. The Crown appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and remitted the matter for trial. The court held that the information contained sufficient detail to comply with s. 510(3).

Criminal Law - Topic 7285

Summary conviction proceedings - Informations - Form and content - Sufficiency of charge - Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, s. 510(3) - The accused were charged that they "did keep a common bawdy-house at [specified place], contrary to the Criminal Code" - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the charge contained sufficient detail to give the accused reasonable information as to the charge and to identify the transaction at issue, as required under s. 510(3) - The court stated that although the offence could be committed in a variety of ways (as could most offences), the charge was easily understood and conceptually uncomplicated and the offence was not one that cast a broad net covering a multitude of diverse and unrelated acts.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Wis Developments Corporation Ltd. et al. (1984), 53 N.R. 134; 53 A.R. 58; 12 C.C.C.(3d) 129 (S.C.C.), dist. [para. 2].

R. v. Ryan; R. v. Charbonneau (1986), 12 O.A.C. 172; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. R.I.C. (1987), 17 O.A.C. 354 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. McKenzie (1971), 4 C.C.C.(2d) 296 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Harder (1956), 114 C.C.C. 129 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Griss and Gruber (1936), 67 C.C.C. 184 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. France (1898), 1 C.C.C. 321 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Wong Gai (1936), 66 C.C.C. 265 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Lum Pie (1937), 70 C.C.C. 34 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

Patterson v. The Queen, [1968] 2 C.C.C. 247 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Bingo Enterprises Ltd. et al. (1984), 29 Man.R.(2d) 78; 15 C.C.C.(3d) 261 (C.A.), disagreed with, [para. 11].

R. v. Fischer (1985), 40 Sask.R. 239; 45 C.R.(3d) 191 (C.A.), agreed with, [para. 11].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 11(a).

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 179(1), sect. 193(1), sect. 510(3) [para. 3].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Martin's Annual Criminal Code (1986-87), p. 1031 [para. 7].

Counsel:

Kenneth D. Campbell, for the Crown;

Alan D. Gold, for the respondents.

This appeal was heard on March 19 and 20, 1987, before Cory, Robins and Finlayson, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered orally by Robins, J.A., and released on April 14, 1987.