R. v. Mitchell (C.F.), (1992) 132 N.B.R.(2d) 293 (PC)

• Judge: Brien, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of New Brunswick (Canada)
• Case Date: December 01, 1992
• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Citations: (1992), 132 N.B.R.(2d) 293 (PC)

R. v. Mitchell (C.F.) (1992), 132 N.B.R.(2d) 293 (PC);

    132 R.N.-B.(2e) 293; 337 A.P.R. 293

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

R. v. Charles Frederick Mitchell

Indexed As: R. v. Mitchell (C.F.)

New Brunswick Provincial Court

Brien, P.C.J.

December 1, 1992.

Summary:

An accused was charged with possession of car keys of a value not exceeding $1,000, knowing them to have been obtained by the commission of an offence, contrary to s. 354(1)(a) of the Criminal Code. He sub­mitted that the information did not disclose a criminal offence and was a nullity.

The New Brunswick Provincial Court dismissed the motion.

Criminal Law - Topic 7261

Summary conviction proceedings - Informations - Validity - General - The accused contested the validity of the infor­mation charging him with possession of car keys of a value not exceeding $1,000, knowing the same to have been obtained by the commission of an offence, contrary to s. 354(1)(a) of the Criminal Code - The New Brunswick Provincial Court held that the information was sufficient, either under s. 581(2)(b) where it tracked the words of s. 354 describing the offence or under s. 581(2)(c) where it was drafted in words sufficient to give the accused notice of the offence with which he was charged - Alternatively, the court would amend the information, if defective, to refer to s. 355 - See paragraphs 19 to 30.

Criminal Law - Topic 7263

Summary conviction proceedings - Informations - Nullities - General - The accused contested the validity of the infor­mation charging him with an offence under s. 354(1)(a) of the Criminal Code - The New Brunswick Provincial Court stated that the first question is whether the infor­mation is defective; second, if it is found defective, is whether it can be amended or is it an absolute nullity so that it must be quashed; third, if it is defective but not a nullity, should it be amended - See para­graph 18.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Coté, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 8; 13 N.R. 271, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Adduono et al. (1940), 73 C.C.C. 152 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Major, [1977] 1 S.C.R. 826; 8 N.R. 210; 14 N.S.R.(2d) 704; 11 A.P.R. 704, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Moore, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 1097; 85 N.R. 195, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Mockler (1989), 94 N.B.R.(2d) 101; 239 A.P.R. 101 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Colborne (1990), 104 N.B.R.(2d) 117; 261 A.P.R. 117 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. McKenzie, [1972] S.C.R. 409, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Irving (J.D.) Ltd. (1975), 12 N.B.R.(2d) 108; 10 A.P.R. 108; 28 C.C.C.(2d) 242 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 354(1)(a), sect. 355 [para. 7]; sect. 581(2) [para. 17]; sect. 581(3) [para. 10]; sect. 581(5) [para. 24]; sect. 601(1) [para. 11].

Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-21, sect. 34 [para. 25].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Salhany, Canadian Criminal Procedure (2nd Ed.), p. 103 [para. 12].

Counsel:

C. Titus, for the Crown;

Eric Teed, Q.C., for the accused.

This motion was heard at Saint John, New Brunswick, before Brien, P.C.J., of the New Brunswick Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on December 1, 1992.