R. v. Morin (C.L.), 2005 ABQB 376

JudgeWatson, J.
CourtCourt of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
Case DateMay 20, 2005
Citations2005 ABQB 376;(2005), 383 A.R. 1 (QB)

R. v. Morin (C.L.) (2005), 383 A.R. 1 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2005] A.R. TBEd. MY.125

Her Majesty The Queen v. Clifford Leo Morin

(020846416Q1; 2005 ABQB 376)

Indexed As: R. v. Morin (C.L.)

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Watson, J.

May 20, 2005.

Summary:

The accused was charged with assault, assault with a weapon, unlawful confinement and uttering threats. The complainant was his elderly mother. The Crown sought to introduce a number of out of court statements made by the now deceased mother to police and others.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench ruled that two of the statements, an audiotaped interview by police and an affidavit sworn by the mother for the purpose of obtaining an Emergency Protection Order, were admissible for their truth under the principled approach to the admission of hearsay. All other statements were admissible for the limited purposes of "narrative" and "capacity".

Criminal Law - Topic 5334

Evidence and witnesses - Confessions and voluntary statements - Voir dire - Procedure - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "strict application of traditional rules of exclusion within a voir dire contrasts with the reality that the purpose of a voir dire is usually for a trial judge to usually to deal with impugned evidence or questioned procedure. Thus, the role of a trial judge during a voir dire is grounded in confidence that the trial judge will in the end result understand what is and what is not permissible and of probative value for the trial proper. Accordingly, it seems to me that a trial judge should be able to consider during the voir dire any evidence which may on offering seem to be relevant, subject mainly to a discretion to exclude that which is plainly irrelevant and to exclude that for which reception even within the voir dire would be adjudicatively unfair. Evidence thus provisionally admitted may turn out to be inadmissible or irrelevant at trial. The trial judge is expected to know that." - See paragraphs 47 to 48.

Evidence - Topic 1527

Hearsay rule - Hearsay rule exceptions and exclusions - General - Where admission of hearsay necessary and evidence reliable - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in generally discussing the admissibility of hearsay on the basis of necessity and reliability, discussed and distinguished forensic and adjudicative necessity and threshold and ultimate reliability - See paragraphs 70 to 115.

Evidence - Topic 1527

Hearsay rule - Hearsay rule exceptions and exclusions - General - Where admission of hearsay necessary and evidence reliable - The accused was charged with assault, assault with a weapon, unlawful confinement and uttering threats - The complainant was his elderly mother and died in late 2002 at the age of 88 - The Crown sought to introduce out of court statements made by the mother to police and others - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench ruled that two of the statements, an audiotaped interview by police and an affidavit sworn by the mother before a lawyer for the purpose of obtaining an Emergency Protection Order, were admissible for their testimonial content under the principled approach to the admission of hearsay - Both were necessary and there existed sufficient circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness to meet the threshold level of reliability - The remaining statements were also admissible, but for the limited purposes of part of the narrative of the events and in relation to the mental capacity of the mother to accurately understand, remember and report events - See paragraphs 161 to 194.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Khelawon (R.) (2005), 195 O.A.C. 11; 194 C.C.C.(3d) 161; 26 C.R.(6th) 1; 2005 CarswellOnt 720 (C.A.), leave to appeal dismissed (2005), 345 N.R. 400 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 16, footnote 8].

R. v. Marquard (D.), [1993] 4 S.C.R. 223; 159 N.R. 81; 66 O.A.C. 161; 85 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 25 C.R.(4th) 1; 108 D.L.R.(4th) 47; 1993 CarswellOnt 995, refd to. [para. 18, footnote 9].

R. v. Graat, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 819; 45 N.R. 451; 31 C.R.(3d) 289; 18 M.V.R. 287; 2 C.C.C.(3d) 365; 144 D.L.R.(3d) 267; 1982 CarswellOnt 101, refd to. [para. 20, footnote 10].

R. v. Falkenberg (S.R.) (1995), 165 A.R. 16; 89 W.A.C. 16; 95 C.C.C.(3d) 307 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied (1995), 191 N.R. 400; 178 A.R. 371; 110 W.A.C. 371 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 20, footnote 11].

R. v. MacKenzie, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 212; 146 N.R. 321; 118 N.S.R.(2d) 290; 327 A.P.R. 290; 78 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 18 C.R.(4th) 133; 18 W.C.B.(2d) 348; 1993 CarswellNS 12, refd to. [para. 26, footnote 12].

R. v. Grandinetti (C.H.) (2005), 329 N.R. 28; 363 A.R. 1; 343 W.A.C. 1; 191 C.C.C.(3d) 449; 25 C.R.(6th) 1; 247 D.L.R.(4th) 385; 37 Alta. L.R.(4th) 197; 2005 CarswellAlta 81; 2005 SCC 5, refd to. [para. 29, footnote 13].

R. v. M.C.H., [1998] 2 S.C.R. 449; 230 N.R. 1; 113 O.A.C. 1; 18 C.R.(5th) 135; 127 C.C.C.(3d) 475; 163 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 1998 CarswellOnt 3417, refd to. [para. 29, footnote 14].

R. v. Hodgson (M.C.) - see R. v. M.C.H.

R. v. Wells (S.W.), [1998] 2 S.C.R. 517; 230 N.R. 183; 112 B.C.A.C. 101; 182 W.A.C. 101; 127 C.C.C.(3d) 500; 18 C.R.(5th) 181; 163 D.L.R.(4th) 628; [1999] 5 W.W.R. 331; 57 B.C.L.R.(3d) 104; 1998 CarswellBC 1931, refd to. [para. 29, footnote 15].

R. v. Starr (R.D.), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 144; 258 N.R. 250; 148 Man.R.(2d) 161; 224 W.A.C. 161; 147 C.C.C.(3d) 449; 36 C.R.(5th) 1; 190 D.L.R.(4th) 591; [2000] 11 W.W.R. 1; 2000 CarswellMan 449; 2000 SCC 40, refd to. [para. 31, footnote 17].

R. v. Carter, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 938; 47 N.R. 288; 46 N.B.R.(2d) 142; 121 A.P.R. 142; 31 C.R.(3d) 97; 67 C.C.C.(2d) 568; 137 D.L.R.(3d) 387; 1982 CarswellNB 13, refd to. [para. 39, footnote 18].

R. v. Mapara (S.) et al. (2005), 332 N.R. 244; 211 B.C.A.C. 1; 349 W.A.C. 1; 2005 CarswellBC 963; 2005 SCC 23, affd. (2003), 179 B.C.A.C. 92; 295 W.A.C. 92; 180 C.C.C.(3d) 184; 2003 CarswellBC 450; [2003] B.C.W.L.D. 607; 2003 BCCA 131 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40, footnote 19].

R. v. Darrach (A.S.), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 443; 259 N.R. 336; 137 O.A.C. 91; 148 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 191 D.L.R.(4th) 539; 36 C.R.(5th) 223; 78 C.R.R.(2d) 53; 2000 CarswellOnt 3321; 2000 SCC 46, affd. (1998), 107 O.A.C. 81; 122 C.C.C.(3d) 225; 13 C.R.(5th) 283; 38 O.R.(3d) 1; 49 C.R.R.(2d) 189; 1998 CarswellOnt 684 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 45, footnote 22].

R. v. Corbett, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 670; 85 N.R. 81; 41 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 64 C.R.(3d) 1; [1988] 4 W.W.R. 481; 28 B.C.L.R.(2d) 145; 34 C.R.R. 54; 1988 CarswellBC 252, refd to. [para. 49, footnote 23].

R. v. Dersch (W.W.) et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1505; 116 N.R. 340; 43 O.A.C. 256; 36 Q.A.C. 258; 60 C.C.C.(3d) 132; 80 C.R.(3d) 299; 51 B.C.L.R.(2d) 145; [1991] 1 W.W.R. 231; 50 C.R.R. 272; 77 D.L.R.(4th) 473; 1990 CarswellOnt 1, refd to. [para. 50, footnote 24].

R. v. Gratton (A.L.) (2003), 329 A.R. 208; 33 M.V.R.(4th) 44; 2003 CarswellAlta 4; 2003 ABQB 8, refd to. [para. 52, footnote 25].

R. v. Kim (H.S.) et al. (2004), 368 A.R. 271; 2004 CarswellAlta 1528; 2004 ABQB 584, refd to. [para. 52, footnote 26].

R. v. Douglas (R.D.) (2005), 387 A.R. 1; 2005 ABQB 252, refd to. [para. 52, footnote 27].

R. v. Burns (R.H.), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 656; 165 N.R. 374; 42 B.C.A.C. 161; 67 W.A.C. 161; 89 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 29 C.R.(4th) 113; 23 W.C.B.(2d) 211; 1994 CarswellBC 576, refd to. [para. 53, footnote 28].

R. v. Jolivet (D.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 751; 254 N.R. 1; 144 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 33 C.R.(5th) 1; 185 D.L.R.(4th) 626; 2000 CarswellQue 805; 2000 SCC 29, refd to. [para. 58, footnote 30].

Teper v. R., [1952] A.C. 480; [1952] 2 All E.R. 447 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 60, footnote 31].

R. v. Lyttle (M.G.), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 193; 316 N.R. 52; 184 O.A.C. 1; 180 C.C.C.(3d) 476; 17 C.R.(6th) 1; 235 D.L.R.(4th) 244; 115 C.R.R.(2d) 172; 70 O.R.(3d) 256; 2004 CarswellOnt 510; 2004 SCC 5, refd to. [para. 60, footnote 32].

Crawford v. Washington (2004), 147 Wash.2d 424; 54 P.3d 656 (Wash. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 62, footnote 33].

R. v. Sweitzer, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 949; 42 N.R. 550; 37 A.R. 294; 68 C.C.C.(2d) 193; 137 D.L.R.(3d) 702; 21 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97; 29 C.R.(3d) 97; [1982] 5 W.W.R. 555; 1982 CarswellAlta 552, refd to. [para. 66, footnote 34].

R. v. Sigmund, Howe, Defend and Curry, [1968] 1 C.C.C. 91; 60 W.W.R.(N.S.) 257 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 68, footnote 35].

R. v. Papakosmas (C.), [1999] H.C.A. 37 (Aust. H.C.), refd to. [para. 68, footnote 35].

R. v. Allender (B.W.F.), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 333; 214 N.R. 296; 94 B.C.A.C. 161; 152 W.A.C. 161; 117 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 1997 CarswellBC 1515, affing. (1996), 70 B.C.A.C. 241; 115 W.A.C. 241 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 68, footnote 36].

R. v. Smith (A.L.), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 915; 139 N.R. 323; 55 O.A.C. 321; 75 C.C.C.(3d) 257; 94 D.L.R.(4th) 590; 15 C.R.(4th) 133; 1992 CarswellOnt 103, refd to. [para. 76, footnote 38].

R. v. Nguyen (S.V.) (2001), 281 A.R. 91; 248 W.A.C. 91; 153 C.C.C.(3d) 495; 42 C.R.(5th) 35; 2001 CarswellAlta 526; 2001 ABCA 98, refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Rockey (S.E.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 829; 204 N.R. 214; 95 O.A.C. 134; 110 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 2 C.R.(5th) 301; 30 O.R.(3d) 577; 140 D.L.R.(4th) 503; 1996 CarswellOnt 4284, refd to. [para. 79, footnote 40].

R. v. Dionne (J.F.) (2004), 357 A.R. 376; 334 W.A.C. 376; 193 C.C.C.(3d) 228; 2004 CarswellAlta 1696; 2004 ABCA 400, refd to. [para. 79, footnote 41].

R. v. Hawkins (K.R.) and Morin (C.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1043; 204 N.R. 241; 96 O.A.C. 81; 111 C.C.C.(3d) 129; 2 C.R.(5th) 245; 30 O.R.(3d) 641; 141 D.L.R.(4th) 193; 1996 CarswellOnt 4062, refd to. [para. 80, footnote 42].

R. v. R.R., [2003] 1 S.C.R. 37; 300 N.R. 230; 169 O.A.C. 180; 171 C.C.C.(3d) 575; 10 C.R.(6th) 1; 2003 CarswellOnt 366; 2003 SCC 4, refd to. [para. 80, footnote 43].

R. v. Buric (G.J.) et al., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 535; 209 N.R. 241; 98 O.A.C. 398; 114 C.C.C.(3d) 95; 32 O.R.(3d) 320; 42 C.R.R.(2d) 187; 1997 CarswellOnt 984, affing. (1996), 90 O.A.C. 321; 106 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 48 C.R.(4th) 149; 28 O.R.(3d) 737; 36 C.R.R.(2d) 62 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 86, footnote 44].

R. v. Workman (R.J.) (1998), 228 A.R. 87; 188 W.A.C. 87; 21 C.R.(5th) 359; 1998 CarswellAlta 944 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 89, footnote 45].

R. v. Khan, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 531; 113 N.R. 53; 41 O.A.C. 353; 59 C.C.C.(3d) 92; 79 C.R.(3d) 1; 1990 CarswellOnt 108 affing. (1988), 27 O.A.C. 142; 64 C.R.(3d) 281; 42 C.C.C.(3d) 197; 1988 CarswellOnt 69 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 94, footnote 46].

R. v. F.J.U., [1995] 3 S.C.R. 764; 186 N.R. 365; 85 O.A.C. 321; 42 C.R.(4th) 133; 101 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 128 D.L.R.(4th) 121; 1995 CarswellOnt 555, refd to. [para. 94, footnote 47].

R. v. Johnson (W.D.) (2004), 225 N.S.R.(2d) 22; 713 A.P.R. 22; 188 C.C.C.(3d) 214; 23 C.R.(6th) 364; 2004 CarswellNS 286; 2004 NSCA 91, leave to appeal denied (2005), 336 N.R. 200; 237 N.S.R.(2d) 403; 754 A.P.R. 403; 2005 CarswellNS 12 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 94, footnote 48].

R. v. Merz (H.J.) (1999), 127 O.A.C. 1; 140 C.C.C.(3d) 259; 30 C.R.(5th) 313; 46 O.R.(3d) 161; 1999 CarswellOnt 3620 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied (2000), 263 N.R. 391; 141 O.A.C. 398; 2000 CarswellOnt 3925; 147 C.C.C.(3d) vi (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 94, footnote 49].

R. v. Harrison (P.W.) (2001), 150 B.C.A.C. 247; 245 W.A.C. 247; 156 C.C.C.(3d) 117; 87 B.C.L.R.(3d) 313; 2001 BCCA 0272, leave to appeal refused (2001), 282 N.R. 197; 165 B.C.A.C. 92; 270 W.A.C. 92; 2001 CarswellBC 2069 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 94, footnote 50].

R. v. Walker (E.S.) (2002), 163 B.C.A.C. 101; 267 W.A.C. 101; 163 C.C.C.(3d) 29; 2002 CarswellBC 151; 2002 BCCA 0089, leave to appeal denied (2002), 307 N.R. 398; 188 B.C.A.C. 320; 308 W.A.C. 320; 2002 CarswellBC 3059 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 94, footnote 51].

R. v. Chappell (S.) (2003), 169 O.A.C. 161; 172 C.C.C.(3d) 539; 15 C.R.(6th) 350; 2003 CarswellOnt 693 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 94, footnote 52].

R. v. D.R., H.R. and D.W., [1996] 2 S.C.R. 291; 197 N.R. 321; 144 Sask.R. 81; 124 W.A.C. 81; 107 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 48 C.R.(4th) 368; 1996 CarsellSask 448, reving. (1995), 131 Sask.R. 81; 95 W.A.C. 81; 98 C.C.C.(3d) 353; 1995 CarswellSask 268 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 94, footnote 53].

R. v. Czibulka (L.) (2004), 190 O.A.C. 1; 189 C.C.C.(3d) 199; 24 C.R.(6th) 152; 2004 CarswellOnt 3721 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (2005), 344 N.R. 194 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 94, footnote 54].

R. v. Scott (J.M.) (2004), 228 N.S.R.(2d) 203; 723 A.P.R. 203; 191 C.C.C.(3d) 183; 26 C.R.(6th) 145; 2004 Carswell NS 484; 2004 NSCA 141, leave to appeal dismissed (2005) 346 N.R.193 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 94, footnote 55].

R. v. Strachan, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 980; 90 N.R. 273; 46 C.C.C.(3d) 479; 67 C.R.(3d) 87; 56 D.L.R.(4th) 673; [1989] 1 W.W.R. 385; 37 C.R.R. 335; 1988 CarswellBC 699, refd to. [para. 98, footnote 56].

R. v. Goldhart (W.), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 463; 198 N.R. 321; 92 O.A.C. 161; 107 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 28 O.R.(3d) 480; 136 D.L.R.(4th) 502; 48 C.R.(4th) 297; 37 C.R.R.(2d) 1; 1996 CarswellOnt 2739, refd to. [para. 98, footnote 57].

R. v. Feeney (M.), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 13; 212 N.R. 83; 91 B.C.A.C. 1; 148 W.A.C. 1; 115 C.C.C.(3d) 129; 44 C.R.R.(2d) 1; [1997] 6 W.W.R. 634; 7 C.R.(5th) 101; 1997 CarswellBC 1015, refd to. [para. 98, footnote 58].

Doe d. Arnold et al. v. Auldjo (1848), 5 U.C.Q.B. 171 (U.C.Q.B.), refd to. [para. 101, footnote 59].

R. v. Cotton (1812), 3 Camp. 444, refd to. [para. 101, footnote 59].

Slane Peerage Case (1838), 5 C. & F. 23, refd to. [para. 101, footnote 59].

Monkton v. Attorney General (1827), 2 Russ. & Myl. 160, refd to. [para. 101, footnote 59].

Walker v. Beauchamp (1834), 6 C. & P. 561, refd to. [para. 101, footnote 59].

Freeman v. Phillips (1816), 4 M. & S. 486, refd to. [para. 101, footnote 59].

Sussex Peerage Case (1844), 11 C. & F. 85; 8 E.R. 1034 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 101, footnote 59].

R. v. Liew (K.L.), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 227; 244 N.R. 249; 244 A.R. 1; 209 W.A.C. 1; 137 C.C.C.(3d) 353; 27 C.R.(5th) 29; [1999] 9 W.W.R. 538; 177 D.L.R.(4th) 302; 72 Alta. L.R.(3d) 1; 66 C.R.R.(2d) 189; 1999 CarswellAlta 821; 7 B.H.R.C. 708, refd to. [para. 112, footnote 61].

R. v. Meddoui, [1991] 2 W.W.R. 289; 111 A.R. 295; 61 C.C.C.(3d) 345; 2 C.R.(4th) 216; 77 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97; 5 C.R.R.(2d) 294; 1990 CarswellAlta 187 (C.A.), leave to appeal quashed [1991] 1 S.C.R. xi; 137 N.R. 389; 114 A.R. 80; 69 C.C.C.(3d) vi; 6 C.R.R.(2d) 192; 82 Alta. L.R.(2d) lxv, refd to. [para. 113, footnote 62].

R. v. C.C.F., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1183; 220 N.R. 362; 104 O.A.C. 321; 120 C.C.C.(3d) 225; 11 C.R.(5th) 209; 154 D.L.R.(4th) 13; 1997 CarswellOnt 4448, refd to. [para. 113, footnote 63].

R. v. Ghorvei (M.) (1999), 124 O.A.C. 301; 138 C.C.C.(3d) 340; 29 C.R.(5th) 102; 46 O.R.(3d) 63; 1999 CarswellOnt 2763 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 117, footnote 64].

R. v. K.G.B., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 740; 148 N.R. 241; 61 O.A.C. 1; 79 C.C.C.(3d) 257; 19 C.R.(4th) 1; 1993 CarswellOnt 76, refd to. [para. 127, footnote 66].

R. v. Harrer (H.M.), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 562; 186 N.R. 329; 64 B.C.A.C. 161; 105 W.A.C. 161; 101 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 128 D.L.R.(4th) 98; 42 C.R.(4th) 269; 32 C.R.R.(2d) 273; 1995 CarswellBC 1098, refd to. [para. 128, footnote 67].

R. v. Carosella (N.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 80; 207 N.R. 321; 98 O.A.C. 81: 142 D.L.R.(4th) 595; 112 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 4 C.R.(5th) 139; 41 C.R.R.(2d) 189; 1997 CarswellOnt 85; 2 B.H.R.C. 23, refd to. [para. 129, footnote 68].

R. v. La (H.K.) et al., [1997] 2 S.C.R. 680; 213 N.R. 1; 200 A.R. 81; 146 W.A.C. 81; 116 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 8 C.R.(5th) 155; 148 D.L.R.(4th) 608; [1997] 8 W.W.R. 1; 51 Alta. L.R.(3d) 181; 44 C.R.R.(2d) 262; 1997 CarswellAlta 491, refd to. [para. 129, footnote 69].

R. v. Vu - see R. v. La (H.K.) et al.

R. v. Dwernychuk (M.K.) (1992), 135 A.R. 31; 33 W.A.C. 31; 77 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 42 M.V.R.(2d) 237; 12 C.R.R.(2d) 175; 1992 CarswellAlta 263 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1993] 2 S.C.R. vii; 151 N.R. 400; 141 A.R. 317; 46 W.A.C. 317; 79 C.C.C.(3d) vi; 14 C.R.R.(2d) 192, refd to. [para. 130, footnote 70].

R. v. Kutynec (1992), 52 O.A.C. 59; 70 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 12 C.R.(4th) 152; 7 O.R.(3d) 277; 8 C.R.R.(2d) 300; 1992 CarswellOnt 79 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 130, footnote 71].

R. v. Cherpak, [1978] 5 W.W.R. 315; 9 A.R. 596; 42 C.C.C.(2d) 166; 1978 CarswellAlta 254 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1978), 24 N.R. 540; 13 A.R. 180; 42 C.C.C.(2d) 166 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 136, footnote 74].

R. v. Ford (R.L.) (1993), 23 B.C.A.C. 50; 39 W.A.C. 50; 78 C.C.C.(3d) 481; [1993] B.C.W.L.D. 518; 1993 CarswellBC 1134 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 136, footnote 75].

R. v. Ferris (J.M.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 756; 174 N.R. 158; 162 A.R. 108; 83 W.A.C. 108; 34 C.R.(4th) 26; 1994 CarswellAlta 750, refd to. [para. 139, footnote 76].

R. v. Richards (D.B.) (1997), 87 B.C.A.C. 21; 143 W.A.C. 21; 6 C.R.(5th) 154; 1997 CarswellBC 272 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied 2003 CarswellBC 1322 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 142, footnote 77].

R. v. Hysop (D.E.) (2000), 139 B.C.A.C. 39; 227 W.A.C. 39; 2000 CarswellBC 1042; 2000 BCCA 314, leave to appeal denied (2001), 267 N.R. 197; 154 B.C.A.C. 318; 252 W.A.C. 318; 2001 CarswellBC 128; 2001 CarswellBC 127 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 142, footnote 78].

R. v. Hunter (N.) (2001), 146 O.A.C. 390; 155 C.C.C. (3d) 225; 45 C.R. (5th) 345, 54 O.R.(3d) 695, 2001 CarswellOnt 2164 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 142, footnote 79].

R. v. Mooring (I.R.) and Woods (R.J.) (1999), 126 B.C.A.C. 181; 206 W.A.C. 181; 137 C.C.C.(3d) 324; 1999 CarswellBC 1478; 1999 BCCA 418, refd to. [para. 142, footnote 80].

R. v. Terry (R.S.), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 207; 197 N.R. 105; 76 B.C.A.C. 25; 125 W.A.C. 25; 106 C.C.C.(3d) 508; 48 C.R.(4th) 137; 135 D.L.R.(4th) 214; 36 C.R.R.(2d) 21; 1996 CarswellBC 2299, refd to. [para. 144, footnote 81].

R. v. Finley (Z.V.) (1996), 77 B.C.A.C. 70; 126 W.A.C. 70; 1996 CarswellBC 1423 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 144, footnote 82].

R. v. J.E.D. (2002), 325 A.R. 305; 2002 CarswellAlta 1680; 2002 ABQB 1064, affd. [2004] A.R. Uned. 63; 2004 CarswellAlta 425; [2004] A.W.L.D. 243; 2004 ABCA 119, refd to. [para. 144, footnote 83].

Subramaniam v. Public Prosecutor, [1956] 1 W.L.R. 965 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 147, footnote 85].

R. v. Abbey, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 24; 43 N.R. 30; 138 D.L.R.(3d) 202; [1983] 1 W.W.R. 251; 39 B.C.L.R. 201; 29 C.R.(3d) 193; 68 C.C.C.(2d) 394; 1982 CarswellBC 740, refd to. [para. 147, footnote 86].

R. v. Smith (A.L.), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 915; 139 N.R. 323; 55 O.A.C. 321; 75 C.C.C.(3d) 257; 94 D.L.R.(4th) 590; 15 C.R.(4th) 133; 1992 CarswellOnt 103, refd to. [para. 147, footnote 87].

R. v. Clemente (V.F.), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 758; 168 N.R. 310; 95 Man.R.(2d) 161; 70 W.A.C. 161; 31 C.R.(4th) 28; [1994] 8 W.W.R. 1; 91 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 1994 CarswellMan 152, refd to. [para. 147, footnote 88].

R. v. Hanneson et al. (1989), 34 O.A.C. 352; 49 C.C.C.(3d) 467; 71 C.R.(3d) 249; 48 C.R.R. 187; 1989 CarswellOnt 102 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 147, footnote 89].

Kamleh v. R., [2005] HCA 2 (Aust. H.C.), refd to. [para. 147, footnote 90].

R. v. Kamleh, [2003] SASC 3, refd to. [para. 147, footnote 90].

R. v. Demetrius (L.) (2003), 176 O.A.C. 349; 179 C.C.C.(3d) 26; 2003 CarswellOnt 3631 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 148, footnote 91].

R. v. Magloir (D.C.) (2003), 216 N.S.R.(2d) 257; 680 A.P.R. 257; 178 C.C.C.(3d) 310; 16 C.R.(6th) 384; 2003 CarswellNS 253; 2003 NSCA 74, refd to. [para. 149, footnote 92].

R. v. Chase (J.A.) (1998), 212 A.R. 54; 168 W.A.C. 54; 1998 CarswellAlta 178 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 149, footnote 93].

R. v. J.G.B. (2002), 158 O.A.C. 140; 4 C.R.(4th) 150; 2002 CarswellOnt 1043 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 149, footnote 94].

R. v. A.J.B., [1995] 2 S.C.R. 413; 182 N.R. 384; 133 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 231; 413 A.P.R. 231; 98 C.C.C.(3d) 95; 1995 CarswellNfld 43, refd to. [para. 149, footnote 95].

R. v. Agar (K.) (2004), 357 A.R. 134; 334 W.A.C. 134; 2004 CarswellAlta 1377; 2004 ABCA 328, refd to. [para. 149, footnote 96].

R. v. Bird (G.P.) (1996), 71 B.C.A.C. 227; 117 W.A.C. 227; 1996 CarswellBC 368 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 150, footnote 97].

R. v. E.E.H. (1999), 244 A.R. 326; 209 W.A.C. 326; 1999 CarswellAlta 1060 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 150, footnote 98].

R. v. Dowding (D.A.) (2004), 205 B.C.A.C. 245; 337 W.A.C. 245; 191 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 2004 CarswellBC 2698; 2004 BCCA 583, refd to. [para. 150, footnote 99].

R. v. S.R.C. (2004), 238 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 279; 706 A.P.R. 279; 188 C.C.C.(3d) 239; 2004 CarswellPEI 51; 2004 PESCAD 13, refd to. [para. 150, footnote 100].

R. v. D.M.B. (2005), 194 O.A.C. 51; 193 C.C.C.(3d) 409; 2005 CarswellOnt 240 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 150, footnote 101].

R. v. R.G.F., [1997] 6 W.W.R. 273; 200 A.R. 8; 146 W.A.C. 8; 50 Alta. L.R.(3d) 1; 1997 CarswellAlta 336 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied (1998), 228 N.R. 194; 219 A.R. 104; 179 W.A.C. 104 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 150, footnote 102].

R. v. Gorman (P.E.G.) (2001), 193 N.S.R.(2d) 360; 602 A.P.R. 360; 2001 CarswellNS 162; 2001 NSCA 78, refd to. [para. 154, footnote 103].

R. v. Hoffman (A.A.) (1994), 155 A.R. 275; 73 W.A.C. 275; 32 C.R.(4th) 397; 1994 CarswellAlta 325 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 154, footnote 104].

R. v. Lance (E.A.), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 658; 248 N.R. 1; 127 O.A.C. 105; 139 C.C.C.(3d) 227; 1999 CarswellOnt 3125; 1999 CarswellOnt 3126, refd to. [para. 154, footnote 105].

R. v. L.V.L. (2003), 188 B.C.A.C. 15; 308 W.A.C. 15; 177 C.C.C.(3d) 300; 16 C.R.(6th) 375; 2003 CarswellBC 375; 2003 BCCA 545, refd to. [para. 154, footnote 106].

R. v. Burke, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 474; 194 N.R. 247; 139 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 147; 433 A.P.R. 147; 105 C.C.C.(3d) 205; 46 C.R.(4th) 195; 1996 CarswellNfld 85, refd to. [para. 155, footnote 107]

R. v. Handy (J.), [2002] 2 S.C.R. 908; 290 N.R. 1; 160 O.A.C. 201; 164 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 1 C.R.(6th) 203; 213 D.L.R.(4th) 385; 61 O.R.(3d) 415; 2002 CarswellOnt 1968; 2002 SCC 56, refd to. [para. 155, footnote 108].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Akhtar, Suhail, Hearsay: The Denial of Confirmation (2005), 26 C.R.(6th) 46, generally [para. 16, footnote 8].

Stuart, Don, Article on R. v. Khelawon (2005), 26 C.R.(6th) 1, generally [para. 16, footnote 8].

Counsel:

Mark Huyser-Wierenga, for the Crown;

David W. Ross (Laurier Law Office), for the accused.

This voir dire was held before Watson, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment on May 20, 2005.

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 practice notes
  • R. v. Morin (C.L.), (2009) 470 A.R. 284 (QB)
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • 26 Febrero 2009
    ...of court statements made by the now deceased mother to police and others. The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a judgment reported (2005), 383 A.R. 1, ruled that two of the statements, an audiotaped interview by police and an affidavit sworn by the mother for the purpose of obtaining an E......
1 cases
  • R. v. Morin (C.L.), (2009) 470 A.R. 284 (QB)
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • 26 Febrero 2009
    ...of court statements made by the now deceased mother to police and others. The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a judgment reported (2005), 383 A.R. 1, ruled that two of the statements, an audiotaped interview by police and an affidavit sworn by the mother for the purpose of obtaining an E......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT