R. v. Oshaweetok, (1984) 57 A.R. 384 (NWTSC)

Judgede Weerdt, J.
CourtSupreme Court of Northwest Territories (Canada)
Case DateOctober 30, 1984
JurisdictionNorthwest Territories
Citations(1984), 57 A.R. 384 (NWTSC)

R. v. Oshaweetok (1984), 57 A.R. 384 (NWTSC)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Oshaweetok

(SC 3201)

Indexed As: R. v. Oshaweetok

Northwest Territories Supreme Court

de Weerdt, J.

November 20, 1984.

Summary:

The accused was discharged following a preliminary inquiry on a charge of sexual assault. Although no new evidence arose, the accused was re-charged with the same offence. The accused applied under s. 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for a prohibition order to prevent further proceedings on the information, submitting that the re-laying of the information was an abuse of process and a violation of his right to liberty under s. 7 of the Charter.

The Northwest Territories Supreme Court allowed the application and granted an order prohibiting further proceedings on the information.

Civil Rights - Topic 686

Liberty - Principles of fundamental justice - Deprivation of - What constitutes - Following a discharge at a preliminary inquiry, the accused was re-charged with the same offence even though no new evidence arose - The Northwest Territories Supreme Court held that the re-laying of the information violated the accused's right to liberty under s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in a manner not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice - See paragraphs 28 to 38.

Civil Rights - Topic 8377

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Prohibition - Following a discharge at a preliminary inquiry, the accused was re-charged with the same offence even though no new evidence arose - The Northwest Territories Supreme Court held that the re-laying of the information constituted an abuse of process and a violation of the accused's s. 7 Charter rights and that the appropriate remedy under s. 24(1) of the Charter was an order prohibiting further proceedings on the information - See paragraphs 39 to 46.

Criminal Law - Topic 253

Abuse of process - What constitutes - The Northwest Territories Supreme Court held that it was an abuse of process to re-lay a charge on which the accused was discharged after a preliminary inquiry, where no new evidence arose and the only reason for repeating the preliminary inquiry was to bring the matter before another justice so that he may, perhaps, commit the accused for trial - See paragraphs 9 to 27.

Criminal Law - Topic 3510

Preliminary inquiry - Second preliminary inquiry for same offence after discharge - The Northwest Territories Supreme Court held that it was an abuse of process to re-lay a charge on which the accused was discharged after a preliminary inquiry, where no new evidence arose and the only reason for repeating the preliminary inquiry was to bring the matter before another justice so that he may, perhaps, commit the accused for trial - See paragraphs 9 to 27.

Criminal Law - Topic 4262

Procedure - Indictment - Preferring of indictments - By Attorney-General - Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, s. 507(3) - The Northwest Territories Supreme Court stated that the Attorney-General could prefer an indictment under s. 507(3) by signing the indictment or a written direction, preferably endorsed on the indictment, stating that it was to be preferred or that it was preferred by him - See paragraph 35.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Oshaweetok, [1984] N.W.T.R. 138, refd. to. [para. 4].

R. v. Boross (1984), 53 A.R. 257; 31 Alta. L.R. 378 (C.A.), refd. to. [para. 8].

R. v. Chabun (1982), 39 A.R. 486; 70 C.C.C.(2d) 280 (N.W.T.S.C.), refd. to. [para. 8].

R. v. Panarctic Oils Ltd. (1982), 38 A.R. 447; 69 C.C.C.(2d) 393 (N.W.T.S.C.), refd. to. [para. 8].

Re Regina and Atwood, [1972] 5 W.W.R. 600; 8 C.C.C.(2d) 147 (N.W.T.T.C.), reversing [1972] 4 W.W.R. 399; 7 C.C.C.(2d) 116 (N.W.T. Mag. Ct.), refd. to. [para. 8].

R. v. Schell (1979), 20 A.R. 361; 7 M.V.R. 1; 50 C.C.C.(2d) 532, dist. [para. 10].

R. v. Orysiuk (1977), 6 A.R. 548; 37 C.C.C.(2d) 445; 1 C.R.(3d) 111 (C.A.), refd. to. [para. 12].

R. v. Osborn, [1971] S.C.R. 184; 1 C.C.C.(2d) 482; 15 D.L.R.(3d) 85, refd. to. [para. 12].

R. v. Krannenburg, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1053; [1980] 2 W.W.R. 651; 57 C.C.C.(2d) 205; 17 C.R.(3d) 357; 108 D.L.R.(3d) 333; 31 N.R. 206; 20 A.R. 504, refd. to. [para. 13].

Fields v. R. (1980), 12 C.R.(3d) 273, refd. to. [para. 14].

Re Sheehan and The Queen (1973), 14 C.C.C.(2d) 23 (Ont. H.C.J.), refd. to. [para. 16].

R. v. Gibeau (1977), 3 A.R. 404 (S.C.T.D.), refd. to. [para. 16].

R. v. Wright and Grant (1977), 19 N.B.R.(2d) 67; 30 A.P.R. 67 (S.C.), refd. to. [para. 16].

R. v. Dunlop (1976), 37 C.R.N.S. 261 (B.C. Prov. Ct.), refd. to. [para. 16].

R. v. Scheller et al. (No. 1) (1976), 32 C.C.C.(2d) 273 (Ont. Prov. Ct.), refd. to. [para. 16].

R. v. Brown Shoe Co. of Canada Ltd. (1983), 6 C.C.C.(3d) 425 (Ont. H.C.J.), refd. to. [para. 16].

R. v. Ewanchuk, [1974] 4 W.W.R. 230; 16 C.C.C.(2d) 517 (Alta. S.C., App. Div.), affd. [1976] 2 W.W.R. 576n (S.C.C.), refd. to. [para. 17].

R. v. Coutts (1978), 22 A.R. 356; 12 C.R.(3d) 277 (Alta. S.C.T.D.), refd. to. [para. 17].

R. v. Sommervill, [1963] 3 C.C.C. 240; 40 C.R. 384; 43 W.W.R.(N.S.) 87 (Sask. C.A.), refd. to. [para. 17].

R. v. White (1981), 33 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 387; 93 A.P.R. 387; 61 C.C.C.(2d) 329 (Nfld. S.C.T.D.), refd. to. [para. 17].

R. v. Hibbs (1976), 24 N.S.R.(2d) 174; 35 A.P.R 174; 32 C.C.C.(2d) 549; 39 C.R.N.S. 386 (N.S.S.C.T.D.), dist. [para. 19].

Lavigne v. R. (1980), 13 C.R.(3d) 91 (Que. S.C.), refd. to. [para. 20].

R. v. Hamm, [1984] 5 W.W.R. 696; 34 Sask.R. 241 (Man. C.A.), refd. to. [para. 22].

R. v. Rourke, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 1021; 35 C.C.C.(2d) 129; 38 C.R.N.S. 268; 76 D.L.R.(3d) 193; [1977] 5 W.W.R. 487; 16 N.R. 181, refd. to. [para. 25].

R. v. Catagas, [1978] 1 W.W.R. 282; 38 C.C.C.(2d) 296; 2 C.R.(3d) 328; 81 D.L.R.(3d) 396 (Man. C.A.), refd. to. [para. 25].

Bonli v. Gosselin et al. (1981), 25 C.R.(3d) 303; 13 Sask.R. 45 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused: 4 N.R. 357; 16 Sask.R. 178 (S.C.C.), refd. to. [para. 25].

Re Forrester and The Queen, [1977] 1 W.W.R. 681; 33 C.C.C.(2d) 221; 73 D.L.R.(3d) 736; 37 C.R.N.S. 320; 1 Alta. L.R. 326 (Alta. S.C.T.D.), refd. to. [para. 25].

Trotchie v. A.G. Sask., [1980] 5 W.W.R. 738; 7 Sask.R. 9 (Q.B.), refd. to. [para. 25].

R. v. Dennis, Kubin and Frank, [1983] N.W.T.R. 235; 8 C.C.C.(3d) 411; 4 D.L.R.(4d) 131; 48 A.R. 48 (S.C.); affd.[1983] N.W.T.R. 239; 55 A.R. 366; 8 C.C.C. 414; 4 D.L.R.(4d) 134 (N.W.T.C.A.), refd. to. [para. 27].

Re Bruneau and The Queen (1982), 69 C.C.C.(2d) 200 (B.C.S.C.), refd. to. [para. 30].

Joplin v. Chief Constable of the City of Vancouver et al., [1983] 2 W.W.R. 52; 2 C.C.C.(3d) 396; 144 D.L.R.(3d) 385 (B.C.S.C.), refd. to. [para. 30].

Operation Dismantle et al. v. Canada, Government of et al., [1983] 1 F.C. 745; 3 D.L.R.(4d) 193; 49 N.R. 363 (F.C.A.), refd. to. [para. 31].

R. v. Philbin and Henderson, [1978] 1 W.W.R. 122; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 528; 6 A.R. 506 (Alta. C.A.), refd. to. [para. 35].

R. v. Dwyer and Lauzon (1978), 42 C.C.C.(2d) 83 (Ont. C.A.), refd. to. [para. 35].

Balderstone v. R. and A.G. Manitoba et al., [1983] 1 W.W.R. 72; 2 C.C.C.(3d) 37; 143 D.L.R.(3d) 671; 19 Man.R.(2d) 321 (Man. Q.B.), affd. [1983] 6 W.W.R. 438; 8 C.C.C.(3d) 532; 4 D.L.R.(4d) 162; 23 Man.R.(2d) 125 (C.A.), refd. to. [para. 35].

Re Saikaley and The Queen (1979), 48 C.C.C.(2d) 192 (Ont. C.A.), refd. to. [para. 35].

R. v. Lebrun (1978), 45 C.C.C.(2d) 300; 7 C.R.(3d) 93 (B.C.C.A.), refd. to. [para. 40].

Re R. and Lizee (1978), 42 C.C.C.(2d) 173; 4 C.R.(3d) 115 (B.C.S.C.), refd. to. [para. 40].

Young et al. v. Diehl, J., [1981] 5 W.W.R. 58; 10 Sask.R. 209; 60 C.C.C.(2d) 252 (Sask. Q.B.), refd. to. [para. 40].

R. v. Maxner (1981), 47 N.S.R.(2d) 97; 90 A.P.R. 97; 61 C.C.C.(2d) 446; 22 C.R.(3d) 193 (N.S.C.A.), refd. to. [para. 40].

R. v. Zaluski (1983), 27 Sask.R. 224; 7 C.C.C.(3d) 251 (Sask. Q.B.), refd. to. [para. 40].

R. v. Jones (1978), 40 C.C.C.(2d) 173; 4 C.R.(3d) 76 (B.C.S.C.) refd. to. [para. 40].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 507 [para. 3].

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 7 [para. 29]; sect. 24(1) [para. 41].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Crankshaw's Criminal Code of Canada (7th Ed. 1959), p. 1190 [para. 45].

Teed, E., Is a Second Preliminary Inquiry an Abuse of Process? (1981), 23 Crim. L.Q. 239 [para. 16].

Counsel:

John Z. Vertes, for the accused;

M. David Gates, for the Crown.

This application was heard on October 30, 1984, at Yellowknife, N.W.T., before de Weerdt, J., of the Northwest Territories Supreme Court, who delivered the following judgment on November 20, 1984.

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 practice notes
  • R. v. Canada Packers Inc. and Intercontinental Packers Ltd., (1986) 71 A.R. 173 (QB)
    • Canada
    • Alberta Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • June 25, 1986
    ...21 D.L.R.(4th) 230 (B.C.S.C.), dist. [para. 26]. R. v. Young (1984), 3 O.A.C. 254 (Ont. C.A.), dist. [para. 26]. R. v. Oshaweetok (1984), 57 A.R. 384; 16 C.C.C.(3d) 392, dist. [para. Nicholson v. Haldimand-Norfolk Regional Board of Commissioners of Police (1978), 23 N.R. 410; 88 D.L.R.(3d) ......
1 cases
  • R. v. Canada Packers Inc. and Intercontinental Packers Ltd., (1986) 71 A.R. 173 (QB)
    • Canada
    • Alberta Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • June 25, 1986
    ...21 D.L.R.(4th) 230 (B.C.S.C.), dist. [para. 26]. R. v. Young (1984), 3 O.A.C. 254 (Ont. C.A.), dist. [para. 26]. R. v. Oshaweetok (1984), 57 A.R. 384; 16 C.C.C.(3d) 392, dist. [para. Nicholson v. Haldimand-Norfolk Regional Board of Commissioners of Police (1978), 23 N.R. 410; 88 D.L.R.(3d) ......

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