R. v. Moman (R.), 2008 MBQB 311

• Judge: Joyal, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Canada)
• Case Date: November 21, 2008
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: 2008 MBQB 311;(2008), 234 Man.R.(2d) 149 (QB)

R. v. Moman (R.) (2008), 234 Man.R.(2d) 149 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2008] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. DE.020

Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) v. Robert Moman (accused/applicant)

(CR 08-01-28814; 2008 MBQB 311)

Indexed As: R. v. Moman (R.)

Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench

Winnipeg Centre

Joyal, J.

November 21, 2008.

Summary:

In 2003, Tarwid, P.C.J., convicted Moman of five counts of failing to file income tax returns and sentenced him accordingly. Moman was charged with making false statements on his income tax returns, understating his income and not remitting G.S.T. Tarwid, P.C.J., was assigned as the trial judge. Moman sought her recusal. Tarwid, P.C.J., denied the motion. The trial proceeded. Moman sought an order of prohibition to preclude Tarwid, P.C.J., from hearing any further evidence.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench denied the motion.

Criminal Law - Topic 7152

Extraordinary remedies - Prohibition - When available - [See Criminal Law - Topic 7473.2 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 7473.2

Summary conviction proceedings - Appeals - General - Appeal from interlocutory decision - In 2003, Tarwid, P.C.J., convicted Moman of five counts of failing to file income tax returns and sentenced him accordingly - Moman was subject to further related charges under the Income Tax Act - Tarwid, P.C.J., was assigned as the trial judge - She denied Moman's motion for her recusal on an alleged apprehension of bias - The trial proceeded - Moman sought prohibition to preclude Tarwid, P.C.J., from hearing any further evidence - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench denied the motion - Absent a jurisdictional error, interlocutory rulings did not normally provide a basis on which to interfere with an ongoing criminal trial - An exception to this general rule involved situations of excess or lack of jurisdiction where there had been a breach of natural justice that was so flagrant that it rose to the level of jurisdictional error - Tarwid, P.C.J., had authority to make the decision - Moman did not challenge her jurisdiction, but challenged the decision, itself - Accordingly, unless the decision constituted a breach of natural justice that was so flagrant that it rose to the level of jurisdictional error, Moman's motion was not within the available exceptions to the general rule - See paragraphs 16 to 32 - In refusing to recuse herself, Tarwid, P.C.J., heard submissions and considered the governing test - She addressed Moman's concerns, determining that the test was not met - She implicitly stated that mere prior involvement with a litigant did not translate into a reasonable apprehension of bias - Case law supported that - The decision fell far short of a breach of natural justice that constituted jurisdictional error and was not open to immediate review - Moman's remedy, if necessary, was an appeal after trial - See paragraphs 33 to 50.

Cases Noticed:

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. 12].

R. v. Mills (1986), 67 N.R. 241; 16 O.A.C. 81; 26 C.C.C.(3d) 481 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Meltzer and Laison (1989), 96 N.R. 391; 49 C.C.C.(3d) 453 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 17].

Kourtessis et al. v. Minister of National Revenue et al. (1993), 153 N.R. 1; 27 B.C.A.C. 81; 45 W.A.C. 81; 81 C.C.C.(3d) 286 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Teerhuis-Moar (S.) (2008), 228 Man.R.(2d) 248; 427 W.A.C. 248; 2008 MBCA 85, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Deschamps (M.B.) (2003), 177 Man.R.(2d) 301; 304 W.A.C. 301; 2003 MBCA 116, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Rodrigue (J.J.) (1994), 53 B.C.A.C. 275; 87 W.A.C. 275; 95 C.C.C.(3d) 129 (Y.T.C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Adamson (1991), 49 O.A.C. 26; 65 C.C.C.(3d) 159 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Murdock (M.) (1995), 141 N.S.R.(2d) 251; 403 A.P.R. 251 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. J.R.T. (1997), 118 Man.R.(2d) 266; 149 W.A.C. 266 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Ruston (1991), 71 Man.R.(2d) 49; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 419 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Felderhof (J.B.), [2002] O.T.C. 829 (Sup. Ct.), affd. (2003), 180 O.A.C. 288 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Skogman, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 93; 54 N.R. 34, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Sarson (1992), 73 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Russell (D.), [2001] 2 S.C.R. 804; 274 N.R. 247; 150 O.A.C. 99; 2001 SCC 53, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Adam (W.A.) et al., [2006] B.C.T.C. 1540; 2006 BCSC 1540, refd to. [para. 30].

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. 30].

R. v. DiGiuseppe (R.), [2004] O.T.C. 789 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 30].

Kalo v. Human Rights Commission (Man.) (2008), 226 Man.R.(2d) 139; 2008 MBQB 92, refd to. [para. 36].

Wewayakum Indian Band v. Canada and Wewayakai Indian Band, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 259; 309 N.R. 201; 2003 SCC 45, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Werner (H.R.), [2005] A.R. Uned. 736; 205 C.C.C.(3d) 556; 2005 NWTCA 5, refd to. [para. 40].

West v. Wilbur et al. (2002), 255 N.B.R.(2d) 227; 668 A.P.R. 227 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Tremblay (J.G.), [2004] A.R. Uned. 43; 2004 ABCA 102, refd to. [para. 40].

Counsel:

Omar A. Siddiqui and Jeremy A. Akerstream, for the respondent;

Hafeez A. Khan, for the accused/applicant.

This motion was heard by Joyal, J., of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Winnipeg Centre, who delivered the following judgment on November 21, 2008.