R. v. Peers (J.J.) et al., 2016 ABCA 22

JudgeWatson, J.A.
CourtCourt of Appeal (Alberta)
Case DateJanuary 14, 2016
Citations2016 ABCA 22;(2016), 609 A.R. 401

R. v. Peers (J.J.) (2016), 609 A.R. 401; 656 W.A.C. 401 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2016] A.R. TBEd. JA.097

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent/respondent) v. Jeremy James Peers and Robert Peers (applicants/appellants) and The Attorney General of Alberta (intervenor)

(1503-0076-A; 1503-0077-A; 2016 ABCA 22)

Indexed As: R. v. Peers (J.J.) et al.

Alberta Court of Appeal

Watson, J.A.

January 14, 2016.

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, 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, 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 pending a hearing of their application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, per Watson, J.A., dismissed the application, denying a stay.

Practice - Topic 9096

Appeals - Supreme Court of Canada - Stay of proceedings pending appeal - 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 Court of Queen's Bench 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, 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 - That decision was affirmed on appeal - The accused applied under ss. 65 and 65.1 of the Supreme Court Act for a stay of proceedings pending a hearing of their application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada - The Alberta Court of Appeal, per Watson, J.A., dismissed the application - Although the accused raised an arguable issue respecting the interpretation of s. 11(f), the court was not satisfied that the denial of a stay would cause the accused irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay.

Cases Noticed:

RJR-MacDonald Inc. et Imperial Tobacco Ltd. v. Canada (Procureur général), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311; 164 N.R. 1; 60 Q.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 9].

Baker v. Hunter et al. (2015), 609 A.R. 33; 656 W.A.C. 33; 2015 ABCA 309, refd to. [para. 10, footnote 3].

M.B. v. J.H., 2015 ABCA 412, refd to. [para. 10, footnote 3].

C.L.S. v. B.R.S., [2013] A.R. Uned. 418; 37 R.F.L.(7th) 112; 2013 ABCA 349, refd to. [para. 10, footnote 3].

Khadr v. Edmonton Institution (Warden) et al. (2014), 577 A.R. 171; 613 W.A.C. 171; 2014 ABCA 239, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Seaboyer and Gayme, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 577; 128 N.R. 81; 48 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 13].

Yaiguaje et al. v. Chevron Corp. et al. (2014), 315 O.A.C. 109; 2014 ONCA 50, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. DeSousa, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 944; 142 N.R. 1; 56 O.A.C. 109, refd to. [para. 14, footnote 4].

R. v. Mills (B.J.), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 668; 248 N.R. 101; 244 A.R. 201; 209 W.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 14, footnote 4].

R. v. N.S. et al. (2010), 269 O.A.C. 306; 102 O.R.(3d) 161; 2010 ONCA 670, affd. [2012] 3 S.C.R. 726; 437 N.R. 344; 297 O.A.C. 200; 2012 SCC 72, refd to. [para. 14, footnote 4].

Baier et al. v. Alberta, [2006] A.R. Uned. 91; 26 C.P.C.(6th) 234; 2006 ABCA 187, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Lee, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1384; 104 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Kokopenace (C.) (2015), 471 N.R. 1; 332 O.A.C. 1; 2015 SCC 28, refd to. [para. 24].

Baier et al. v. Alberta, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 311; 351 N.R. 302; 391 A.R. 287; 377 W.A.C. 287, refd to. [para. 28].

Statutes Noticed:

Supreme Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-26, sect. 65.1(1) [para. 2, footnote 1].

Counsel:

R.J.C. Stack, for the respondent;

A.S. Millman, for the applicant, Jeremy James Peers;

G.L. Wolch, for the applicant, Robert Peers;

M. Unsworth, Q.C., as agent for R.J. Normey, for the intervenor, Attorney General of Alberta.

This application was heard on January 14, 2016, at Edmonton, Alberta, before Watson, J.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal, whose oral judgment of January 14, 2016, was filed in writing on January 22, 2016.

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 practice notes
  • R. v. H.O., 2020 ONCJ 69
    • Canada
    • Ontario Court of Justice General Division (Canada)
    • January 17, 2020
    ...R. v. D.D., [2002] No. 1061 (C.A.); R. v. M.(D.), 2012 ONCA 520; R. v. Bauer, 2013 ONCA 691; R. v. Miller, 2016 SKCA 32; R. v. Hajar, 2016 ABCA 22; R. v. Hussein, 2017 ONSC 4202; Woodward, supra. [39] The Ontario Court of Appeal has characterized the sexual abuse of a child as an act of bot......
  • R. v. Clowry, 2018 BCSC 2032
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • November 2, 2018
    ...In R. v. Jaden, 2018 BCSC 1685, Madam Justice DeWitt‑Van Oosten said this after referencing s. 718.01 of the Criminal Code, R. v. Hajar, 2016 ABCA 22, and R. v. Allen, at 2012 BCCA [54] . . . In the latter case, it was noted that over the past number of years, the courts have been increasin......
  • R. v. Gudmandson, 2018 MBPC 31
    • Canada
    • Provincial Court of Manitoba (Canada)
    • August 16, 2018
    ...many other, if not all, jurisdictions in Canada (Norton, ibid., at para. 44; R. v. Whiting (SC), 2013 SKCA 101 at para. 27; R. v. Hajar, 2016 ABCA 22 at para. 53; R. v. Barrett (AW), 2012 NLCA 46 at para. 49). The starting point assumes a mature person with a clean record and good prior [64......
  • R. v. Peers (J.J.), [2016] A.R. TBEd. JN.004
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • June 2, 2016
    ...to the single individual applying for a stay in this instance as compared to the situation in R v Peers , 2016 ABCA 27 and R v Peers , 2016 ABCA 22. That is because Robert Peers has entered a guilty plea and he appears to have stepped out of the action, as it were. The applicant, Jeremy Pee......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 cases
  • R. v. H.O., 2020 ONCJ 69
    • Canada
    • Ontario Court of Justice General Division (Canada)
    • January 17, 2020
    ...R. v. D.D., [2002] No. 1061 (C.A.); R. v. M.(D.), 2012 ONCA 520; R. v. Bauer, 2013 ONCA 691; R. v. Miller, 2016 SKCA 32; R. v. Hajar, 2016 ABCA 22; R. v. Hussein, 2017 ONSC 4202; Woodward, supra. [39] The Ontario Court of Appeal has characterized the sexual abuse of a child as an act of bot......
  • R. v. Clowry, 2018 BCSC 2032
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • November 2, 2018
    ...In R. v. Jaden, 2018 BCSC 1685, Madam Justice DeWitt‑Van Oosten said this after referencing s. 718.01 of the Criminal Code, R. v. Hajar, 2016 ABCA 22, and R. v. Allen, at 2012 BCCA [54] . . . In the latter case, it was noted that over the past number of years, the courts have been increasin......
  • R. v. Gudmandson, 2018 MBPC 31
    • Canada
    • Provincial Court of Manitoba (Canada)
    • August 16, 2018
    ...many other, if not all, jurisdictions in Canada (Norton, ibid., at para. 44; R. v. Whiting (SC), 2013 SKCA 101 at para. 27; R. v. Hajar, 2016 ABCA 22 at para. 53; R. v. Barrett (AW), 2012 NLCA 46 at para. 49). The starting point assumes a mature person with a clean record and good prior [64......
  • R. v. Peers (J.J.), [2016] A.R. TBEd. JN.004
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • June 2, 2016
    ...to the single individual applying for a stay in this instance as compared to the situation in R v Peers , 2016 ABCA 27 and R v Peers , 2016 ABCA 22. That is because Robert Peers has entered a guilty plea and he appears to have stepped out of the action, as it were. The applicant, Jeremy Pee......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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