R. v. Morneault (J.-G.), (1999) 231 N.B.R.(2d) 1 (TD)

• Judge: Young, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick (Canada)
• Case Date: September 20, 1999
• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Citations: (1999), 231 N.B.R.(2d) 1 (TD)

R. v. Morneault (J.-G.) (1999), 231 N.B.R.(2d) 1 (TD);

    231 R.N.-B.(2e) 1; 597 A.P.R. 1

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Temp. Cite: [1999] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. OC.053

Jean-Guy Morneault v. Her Majesty the Queen

(E-M-9-98)

Indexed As: R. v. Morneault (J.-G.)

New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench

Trial Division

Judicial District of Edmundston

Young, J.

September 20, 1999.

Summary:

An accused was charged with an offence under the Excise Act and conspiracy under the Criminal Code. The accused made two motions seeking: (1) the quashing of authori­zations to intercept private com­munications and (2) a stay of proceedings for denial of his right to a speedy trial.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, dismissed both mo­tions.

Civil Rights - Topic 3130

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Delay - An accused moved to quash authorizations to intercept private communications - There was a delay of 14 months between the filing of the motion and the hearing - The accused sought a stay of proceedings based on excessive delays - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, dismissed the motion - A motion made within the context of a trial was not a proceeding to which s. 11 of the Charter applied - Although such an interest is protected by s. 7 of the Charter, the delay did not prejudice the accused in this case - See paragraph 10.

Civil Rights - Topic 3264

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Speedy trial - Ac­cused's right to - Denial of right - An accused was charged with an offence under the Excise Act and conspiracy under the Criminal Code - There was a delay of 29 months between the filing of the infor­mation against the accused and the date of trial - The accused sought a stay of pro­ceedings for unreasonable delay (Charter, s. 11(b)) - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, held that 29 months was prima facie an inordinately long delay - The court attributed a six month delay to the Crown and 10 months to institutional delay (a delay exceeding the provincial standard) - However, the accused did not establish unusual prejudice due to this delay - The delay was not unreasonable because society's demand that the accused be brought to trial pre­vailed over the accused's interest - See paragraphs 11 to 55.

Civil Rights - Topic 3270

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Speedy trial - Ac­cused's right to - Evidence of prejudice and causes of delay - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, rejected the argument that an accused must establish "serious" prejudice before a stay of proceedings will be ordered for denial of the right to be tried within a reasonable time - It was preferable to describe the prejudice as being special, actual or real - The need to establish serious prejudice created too high a standard - See paragraph 51.

Criminal Law - Topic 5310

Evidence and witnesses - Admissibility of private communications - Practice - Ad­mission of admissible interceptions - Gen­eral - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3130 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Gray (R.) and Gray (H.) (1998), 208 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 531 A.P.R. 1 (C.A.), folld. [para. 1].

R. v. Garofoli et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1421; 116 N.R. 241; 43 O.A.C. 1; 36 Q.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. Barzal (M.D.) et al. (1993), 33 B.C.A.C. 161; 54 W.A.C. 161 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Debot (1986), 17 O.A.C. 141 (C.A.), affd. [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1140; 102 N.R. 161; 37 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Greffe, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 755; 107 N.R. 1; 107 A.R. 1, reving. (1988), 84 A.R. 96 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Hachey (T.) (1993), 132 N.B.R.(2d) 251; 337 A.P.R. 251 (T.D.), dist. [para. 9].

R. v. Askov, Hussey, Melo and Gugliotta, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1199; 113 N.R. 241; 42 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Morin, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 771; 134 N.R. 321; 53 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. MacDougall (P.A.) (1998), 231 N.R. 147; 168 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 83; 517 A.P.R. 83 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Rahey, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 588; 75 N.R. 81; 78 N.S.R.(2d) 183; 193 A.P.R. 183, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Allen (H.D.) (1996), 92 O.A.C. 345 (C.A.), affd. [1997] 3 S.C.R. 700; 220 N.R. 67; 104 O.A.C. 237, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326; 130 N.R. 277; 120 A.R. 161; 8 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Atkinson (G.W.) et al. (1991), 50 O.A.C. 48 (C.A.), affd. (1992), 143 N.R. 389; 59 O.A.C. 41 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Maillet (M.J.) (1997), 190 N.B.R.(2d) 216; 484 A.P.R. 216 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Young (1984), 3 O.A.C. 254 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Koruz et al. (1993), 150 N.R. 303; 135 A.R. 335; 33 W.A.C. 335 (S.C.C.), affing (1992), 125 A.R. 161; 14 W.A.C. 161 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Charlebois (M.), [1997] N.B.R.(2d) (Supp.) No. 65 (T.D.), folld. [para. 43].

R. v. Sharma, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 814; 134 N.R. 368; 53 O.A.C. 288, refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Mills, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 863; 67 N.R. 241; 16 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 48].

Counsel:

Zoël Dionne, for the applicant;

Thomas Cyr, for the Attorney General of Canada.

These motions were heard on September 20, 1999 by Young, J., of the New Bruns­wick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Divi­sion, Judicial District of Edmundston, who delivered the following decision that same day.