R. v. P.J.S., (2014) 592 A.R. 129 (QB)

• Judge: Graesser, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: June 18, 2014
• Citations: (2014), 592 A.R. 129 (QB);2014 ABQB 409

R. v. P.J.S. (2014), 592 A.R. 129 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] A.R. TBEd. JL.099

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. P.J.S. (applicant/accused)

(120055371Q1; 2014 ABQB 409)

Indexed As: R. v. P.J.S.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Graesser, J.

July 4, 2014.

Summary:

In January 2012, the accused was arrested and charged with assault, assault causing bodily harm, sexual assault, uttering threats, and damaging the victim's cell phone. His trial was set to begin in June 2014. The accused applied for a stay of proceedings on the grounds that his ss. 7, 11(b), 11(d) and 11(h) Charter rights had been violated.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench granted the application. The accused's right to be tried within a reasonable time was violated.

Editor's Note: Certain names in the following case have been initialized or the case otherwise edited to prevent the disclosure of identities where required by law, publication ban, Maritime Law Book's editorial policy or otherwise.

Civil Rights - Topic 3265

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Speedy trial - Accused's right to - Within a reasonable time - What constitutes - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3270 ].

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 - In January 2012, PJS was charged with, inter alia, sexual assault - He elected trial by judge alone - A trial date was set for September 2012, but was adjourned because of the Crown's failure to disclose the complainant's videotaped statement - The statement was disclosed to PJS in January 2013 - Upon reviewing the statement, PJS re-elected trial by judge and jury - A preliminary inquiry was held in March 2013, and a trial was set for January 2014 - Before the trial date, PJS re-elected trial by judge alone, partly because the three days scheduled for the trial might not be sufficient for a jury trial on all of the charges and he did not want the matter delayed - The trial was adjourned because Crown counsel fell ill - It was rescheduled for June 2014 - PJS applied for a stay of proceedings on the grounds that his s. 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time was violated - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench granted the application - This was a straightforward case that should have been tried no later than 18 months after the charges were laid - Twelve months of delay was attributable to the Crown for its late disclosure and for failing to provide a reasonable explanation as to why someone else could not conduct the trial when Crown counsel fell ill - PJS suffered prejudice in the form of anxiety caused by the uncertainty of his future, particularly whether he might lose his job and family, and the possibility that he could be extradited to Portugal if convicted - There was a real risk that trial fairness had been adversely affected by faded memories.

Civil Rights - Topic 8374

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Stay of proceedings - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3270 ].

Cases Noticed:

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. 38].

R. v. Godin (M.), [2009] 2 S.C.R. 3; 389 N.R. 1; 252 O.A.C. 377; 2009 SCC 26, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Morin, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 771; 134 N.R. 321; 53 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Rajasansi (K.S.) (2009), 484 A.R. 149; 2009 ABQB 674, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Durocher (C.) (2012), 550 A.R. 386; 2012 ABQB 705, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Smith (M.H.), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1120; 102 N.R. 205; 63 Man.R.(2d) 81, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Koruz et al. (1992), 125 A.R. 161; 14 W.A.C. 161; 1992 ABCA 144, affd. [1993] 1 S.C.R. 1134; 150 N.R. 303; 135 A.R. 335; 33 W.A.C. 335, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Bailey (G.S.) (2014), 589 A.R. 212; 2014 ABPC 104, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. New (M.) (2012), 550 A.R. 45; 2012 ABQB 596, refd to. [para. 38].

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. 49].

R. v. Tovey, [2006] O.J. No. 3164, refd to. [para. 85].

R. v. Pearce (M.L.) (2011), 263 Man.R.(2d) 133; 2011 MBQB 63, refd to. [para. 86].

R. v. MacDougall (P.A.), [1998] 3 S.C.R. 45; 231 N.R. 147; 168 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 83; 517 A.P.R. 8, refd to. [para. 87].

R. v. Wong, 2012 ONCJ 589, refd to. [para. 88].

R. v. Harvie (K.A.), [2010] A.R. Uned. 274; 2010 ABPC 116, refd to. [para. 89].

R. v. De Guzman (S.A.) (2014), 575 A.R. 370; 612 W.A.C. 370; 2014 ABCA 201, refd to. [para. 106].

Counsel:

Devinder Brar (Crown Prosecutors' Office), for the respondent Crown;

Daryl J. Royer, for the applicant accused.

This application was heard on June 18, 2014, before Graesser, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following reasons for judgment on July 4, 2014.