R. v. Peers (J.J.) et al., (2015) 609 A.R. 352
| Judge | Berger, Slatter and O'Ferrall, JJ.A. |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Alberta) |
| Case Date | December 21, 2015 |
| Citations | (2015), 609 A.R. 352;2015 ABCA 407 |
R. v. Peers (J.J.) (2015), 609 A.R. 352; 656 W.A.C. 352 (CA)
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite: [2015] A.R. TBEd. DE.113
Her Majesty the Queen (respondent/respondent) v. Jeremy James Peers and Robert David Peers (appellants/applicants) and Attorney General of Alberta (intervenor)
(1503-0076-A; 1503-0077A)
Her Majesty the Queen (respondent/respondent) v. Ronald James Aitkens (appellant/applicant) and Attorney General of Alberta (intervenor)
(1503-0197-A; 2015 ABCA 407)
Indexed As: R. v. Peers (J.J.) et al.
Alberta Court of Appeal
Berger, Slatter and O'Ferrall, JJ.A.
December 21, 2015.
Summary:
Section 11(f) of the Charter provided that any person charged with an offence had the right to a jury trial "where the maximum punishment for the offence is imprisonment for five years or a more severe punishment". The accused were charged with offences under the Securities Act which provided for punishment up to imprisonment for five years less a day and/or a maximum fine of $5 million. A Provincial Court judge ruled that the combined effect of the maximum jeopardy under the Act constituted "a more severe punishment" than five years' imprisonment, giving the accused the right to a jury trial under s. 11(f). The judge transferred the proceedings to the Court of Queen's Bench, effectively terminating the proceedings in the Provincial Court. The Alberta Securities Commission sought judicial review of that decision.
The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a judgment reported (2015), 605 A.R. 283, allowed the application and remitted the matter for trial under the Provincial Offences Procedure Act. The judge incorrectly interpreted s. 11(f). Given that the accused faced less than five years' imprisonment, and the Charter was inapplicable to economic rights, the fact that the accused potentially faced an additional monetary penalty did not constitute "a more severe punishment" engaging the right to a jury trial. The judge also erred in transferring the proceedings to the Court of Queen's Bench. In a similar proceeding (R. v. Aitkens (R.J.) (2015), 605 A.R. 100 (Prov. Ct.), affirmed on an unreported appeal in the Queen's Bench) it was likewise held that there was no right to a jury trial. The accused in both matters appealed.
The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals.
Civil Rights - Topic 1201
Security of the person - General - Economic or property rights - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3138 ].
Civil Rights - Topic 3138
Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Right to jury and jury selection (Charter, s. 11(f)) - Section 11(f) of the Charter provided that any person charged with an offence had the right to a jury trial "where the maximum punishment for the offence is imprisonment for five years or a more severe punishment" - The accused were charged with offences under the Securities Act which provided for punishment up to imprisonment for five years less a day and/or a maximum fine of $5 million - The Alberta Court of Appeal agreed that the potential of imprisonment one day short of five years plus a fine did not constitute "a more severe punishment" - "More severe" related back to "imprisonment" - Section 11(f) was to be interpreted in its own context, according to its specific purpose - The court stated that "our system of criminal justice does not recognize an equivalency between imprisonment and money, and incarceration in lieu of paying a fine is a method of encouraging payment of the fine, not a penalty for the original offence. ... On a proper purposive interpretation of s. 11(f), in its context, the expression 'imprisonment for five years or a more severe punishment' should be interpreted as primarily engaging the deprivation of liberty inherent in the maximum sentence of imprisonment imposed by the statute. ... A maximum penalty of 'five years less a day' does not become a 'more severe punishment' just because some collateral negative consequences are added to it" - See paragraphs 1 to 20.
Statutes - Topic 2422
Interpretation - Interpretation of words and phrases - General principles - "Or" - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3138 ].
Cases Noticed:
R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161, refd to. [para. 3].
R. v. Rowbotham (R.) and Roblin (D.), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 463; 168 N.R. 220; 72 O.A.C. 98, refd to. [para. 6].
R. v. Jackpine (R.), [2006] 1 S.C.R. 544; 347 N.R. 201; 210 O.A.C. 200; 2006 SCC 15, refd to. [para. 8].
R. v. Rodgers (D.) - see R. v. Jackpine (R.).
R. v. Silveira (A.), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 297; 181 N.R. 161; 81 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 9].
Guindon v. Minister of National Revenue (2015), 473 N.R. 120; 2015 SCC 41, refd to. [para. 14].
R. v. Bondy, 2013 ONCJ 268, refd to. [para. 16].
R. v. Gibbs, 2001 BCPC 361, refd to. [para. 16].
R. v. Cohn (1984), 4 O.A.C. 293; 48 O.R.(2d) 65; 15 C.C.C.(3d) 150; 13 D.L.R.(4th) 680 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].
R. v. Taillefer (B.), [2003] 3 S.C.R. 307; 313 N.R. 1; 2003 SCC 70, refd to. [para. 22].
Doucet-Boudreau et al. v. Nova Scotia (Minister of Education) et al., [2003] 3 S.C.R. 3; 312 N.R. 1; 218 N.S.R.(2d) 311; 687 A.P.R. 311; 2003 SCC 62, refd to. [para. 22].
Counsel:
D.A. Young and R.J.C. Stack, for the respondent;
N.J. Whitling, S.J. Fix and A.S. Millman, for the appellant, Jeremy James Peers;
G.L. Wolch, for the appellant, Robert David Peers;
B.M. Miller and J.D. Sutherland, for the appellant, Ronald James Aitkens;
R.J. Normey, for the intervenor, Attorney General of Alberta.
These appeals were heard on November 6, 2015, before Berger, Slatter and O'Ferrall, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal.
On December 21, 2015, the judgment of the court was delivered and the following memorandums of judgment were filed:
Berger and Slatter, JJ.A. - see paragraphs 1 to 20;
O'Ferrall, J.A. - see paragraphs 21 to 23.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Table of cases
...6, 195, 268 R v Peepeetch, 2003 SKCA 76 ............................................................................ 289 R v Peers, 2015 ABCA 407, aff’d 2017 SCC 13 ....................................................... 5 R v Penno, [1990] 2 SCR 865, 59 CCC (3d) 344, [1990] SCJ No 96 ...........
-
Table of cases
...2 WWR 331 (Sask Dist Ct) ................................................................................................. 65 R v Peers, 2015 ABCA 407 ...................................................................................514 R v Peers, 2017 SCC 13, [2017] 1 SCR 196 ..................
-
Introduction
...above note 3 at 538 and 575. Justice Lamer did not, of course, hold that ss 8 through 14 exhausted the content of s 7. 13 R v Peers , 2015 ABCA 407 at para 7, aff’d 2017 SCC 13. FUNDAMENTAL JUSTICE 6 has expressed a preference for resolving the issues under sections 8 through 14 rather than......
-
R. v. Peers (J.J.) et al., 2016 ABCA 22
...that there was no right to a jury trial. The accused in both matters appealed. The Alberta Court of Appeal, in a judgment reported (2015), 609 A.R. 352; 656 W.A.C. 352 , dismissed the appeals. The accused applied under ss. 65 and 65.1 of the Supreme Court Act for a stay of proceedings pe......
-
R. v. Peers (J.J.) et al., 2016 ABCA 22
...that there was no right to a jury trial. The accused in both matters appealed. The Alberta Court of Appeal, in a judgment reported (2015), 609 A.R. 352; 656 W.A.C. 352 , dismissed the appeals. The accused applied under ss. 65 and 65.1 of the Supreme Court Act for a stay of proceedings pe......
-
Alberta Securities Commission v Hennig,
...and liable to a maximum fine of $5 million and/or a maximum prison term of five years less a day: see R v Peers, 2017 SCC 13, affirming 2015 ABCA 407, [31] Two Notices of Hearing set out the allegations against Mr Workum and Mr Hennig, and the ......
-
R. v. Peers (J.J.), [2016] A.R. TBEd. JN.004
...Bench with a jury: see R v Peers and Aitkens , scheduled for (February 14, 2017) [2016] SCCA No 69 (QL) (SCC Nos 36865, 36866) from 2015 ABCA 407, 330 CCC (3d) 175. [3] Our Court decided that, despite the maximum penalties available under s 194 of the Securities Act , a jury trial was not r......
-
R. v. Aitkens, 2017 SCC 14
...Securities Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. S-4, s. 194. APPEAL from a judgment of the Alberta Court of Appeal (Berger, Slatter and O’Ferrall JJ.A.), 2015 ABCA 407, 609 A.R. 352, 656 W.A.C. 352, 32 Alta. L.R. (6th) 330 C.C.C. (3d) 175, [2016] 3 W.W.R. 464, [2015] A.J. No. 1413 (QL), 2015 CarswellAlta 2......
-
No Jury Trial For Securities Offences: Economic Penalties Are Not A 'More Severe Punishment' Under Section 11(f) Of The Charter
...released the twin decisions of R v Peers, 2017 SCC 13 and R v Aitkens, 2017 SCC 14. The appeals were from the decision of R v Peers, 2015 ABCA 407, in which a majority of the Alberta Court of Appeal held that a person charged with an offence under s.194 of the Alberta Securities Act, RSA 20......
-
Highlights From The Annual Canadian Securities Administrators' Enforcement Report
...substantially for reasons of the majority of the Court of Appeal. The Alberta Court of Appeal ruling can be viewed here: R v. Peers, 2015 ABCA 407. The Supreme Court of Canada decision can be viewed here: R v. Aitkens, 2017 SCC The content of this article is intended to provide a general gu......
-
Table of cases
...6, 195, 268 R v Peepeetch, 2003 SKCA 76 ............................................................................ 289 R v Peers, 2015 ABCA 407, aff’d 2017 SCC 13 ....................................................... 5 R v Penno, [1990] 2 SCR 865, 59 CCC (3d) 344, [1990] SCJ No 96 ...........
-
Table of cases
...2 WWR 331 (Sask Dist Ct) ................................................................................................. 65 R v Peers, 2015 ABCA 407 ...................................................................................514 R v Peers, 2017 SCC 13, [2017] 1 SCR 196 ..................
-
Introduction
...above note 3 at 538 and 575. Justice Lamer did not, of course, hold that ss 8 through 14 exhausted the content of s 7. 13 R v Peers , 2015 ABCA 407 at para 7, aff’d 2017 SCC 13. FUNDAMENTAL JUSTICE 6 has expressed a preference for resolving the issues under sections 8 through 14 rather than......
-
Securities Law Enforcement
...Act, 1982 , being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11. 28 R v Peers , 2017 SCC 13, [2017] 1 SCR 196. 29 R v Peers , 2015 ABCA 407. 30 Ibid at para 15. 31 Ibid , s 122(7). Securities Law Enforcement 515 staf can choose whether to bring administrative proceedings before the Cap......