R. v. Peekeekoot (Q.S.), (1999) 187 Sask.R. 314 (ProvCt)

• Judge: Goliath, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: November 15, 1999
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (1999), 187 Sask.R. 314 (ProvCt)

R. v. Peekeekoot (Q.S.) (1999), 187 Sask.R. 314 (ProvCt)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] Sask.R. TBEd. DE.052

In The Matter Of Information No. 24028227

Her Majesty the Queen v. Quinn Samuel Peekeekoot

Indexed As: R. v. Peekeekoot (Q.S.)

Saskatchewan Provincial Court

Judicial Centre of Prince Albert

Goliath, P.C.J.

November 15, 1999.

Summary:

The accused failed to comply with a con­di­tion of his probation order that he pay resti­tution. He was charged with breach of pro­bation, and the sole issue was whether he had reasonable excuse for nonpayment.

The Saskatchewan Provincial Court found the accused not guilty.

Criminal Law - Topic 230

Statutory defences or exceptions - Justifi­cation or excuse - [See both Criminal Law - Topic 5731 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5731

Punishments (sentence) - Probation or probation order - Breach of - Restitution order - As part of a sentence imposed on an accused, he was ordered to pay over $4,000 restitution in $250 monthly in­stal­ments - He had a grade 10 education and received wel­fare when between part-time jobs - He made some restitu­tion payments but then stopped paying - He was charged with breach of proba­tion, and the sole issue was whether he had reasonable excuse for nonpayment - The Sask­atchewan Provincial Court found the accused not guilty where the uncontra­dicted evidence indicated that the accused tried to make his payments but was unable to do so - See para­graphs 4 to 11.

Criminal Law - Topic 5731

Punishments (sentence) - Probation or probation order - Breach of - Restitution order - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court stated that "evidence of part pay­ments or failure to make part payments on account of restitution goes to the issue of mens rea, or wilfulness, and should be considered along with evidence of means, etc., when assessing `reasonable excuse' for noncompliance. This evidence is akin to evi­dence of failure to make application to vary terms of a probation order, or to extend time for payment, which could support a finding of wilfulness" - See paragraphs 12 to 13.

Criminal Law - Topic 5791

Punishments (sentence) - Restitution - Gen­eral - [See both Criminal Law - Topic 5731 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Bird (Q.L.) (1999), 183 Sask.R. 119 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. Disbrowe (N.) (1993), 92 Man.R.(2d) 70; 61 W.A.C. 70 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Krieger (K.K.) (1995), 131 Sask.R. 226; 95 W.A.C. 226 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Kent, [1983] 3 W.W.R. 536; 20 Man.R.(2d) 170 (Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 13].

Counsel:

P. Hryhorchuk, for the Crown;

C. Scott, for the defence.

This matter was heard by Goliath, P.C.J., of the Saskatchewan Provincial Court, Judi­cial Centre of Prince Albert, who delivered the follow­ing decision on November 15, 1999.