R. v. Peers (J.J.) et al., (2015) 605 A.R. 283 (QB)

• Judge: Topolniski, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: December 12, 2014
• Citations: (2015), 605 A.R. 283 (QB);2015 ABQB 129

R. v. Peers (J.J.) (2015), 605 A.R. 283 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] A.R. TBEd. MR.032

Her Majesty the Queen v. Jeremey James Peers and Robert David Peers

(120790480Q1; 2015 ABQB 129)

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

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Topolniski, J.

February 24, 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 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.

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 - 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 Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the judge's interpretation was incorrect - The potential of imprisonment one day short of five years plus a fine did not constitute "a more severe punishment" - The court contextually applied the Limiting Class Rule respecting the interpretation of "or" to narrow punishments that qualify to cross the s. 11(f) threshold to those affecting the right to life, liberty and security of the person - The court stated that "The interrelationship between Charter ss. 7 and 11(f) precludes consideration of the fine available under the Securities Act s. 194 in assessing the meaning of the words or a more severe punishment in Charter s. 11(f). I conclude that s. 11(f) applies only where the rights to life, liberty and security of the person are affected" - Since s. 7 did not protect economic interests, the possibility of a fine in addition to imprisonment up to five years less a day did not invoke s. 11(f) - See paragraphs 19 to 84.

Courts - Topic 133

Stare decisis - Authority of judicial decisions - Courts of superior jurisdiction - Obiter dictum - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench discussed whether courts were bound by obiter dicta from a higher court - The court referred to R. v. Henry (SCC), wherein it was stated that "All obiter do not have, and are not intended to have, the same weight, and that the weight decreases as one moves from the dispositive ratio descidendi to a wider circle of analysis which is obviously intended for guidance and which should be accepted as authoritative. Beyond that, there will be commentary, examples, or exposition that are intended to be helpful and may be found to be persuasive, but are certainly not 'binding' in the sense of the Sellars principle in its most exaggerated form would have it. The objective of the exercise is to promote certainty in the law, not to stifle its growth and creativity. The notion that each phrase in a judgment of this Court should be treated as if enacted in a statute is not supported by the cases and is inconsistent with the basic fundamental principle that the common law develops by experience." - See paragraph 40.

Statutes - Topic 2422

Interpretation - Interpretation of words and phrases - General principles - "Or" - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3138 ].

Cases Noticed:

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190; 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 15].

Alberta Teachers' Association v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (Alta.) et al., [2011] 3 S.C.R. 654; 424 N.R. 70; 519 A.R. 1; 539 W.A.C. 1; 2011 SCC 61, refd to. [para. 15].

Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. Matsqui Indian Band et al., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 3; 177 N.R. 325, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Adams (D.C.) (2001), 290 A.R. 316; 2001 ABQB 366, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Black (W.J.) (2011), 515 A.R. 319; 532 W.A.C. 319; 2011 ABCA 349, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Wu (Y.), [2003] 3 S.C.R. 530; 313 N.R. 201; 182 O.A.C. 6; 2003 SCC 73, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Doherty (1919), 42 D.L.R. 203, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Bourque (P.) (2005), 194 O.A.C. 280; 193 C.C.C.(3d) 485 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Waselenchuk (B.) (2005), 381 A.R. 184; 2005 ABQB 182, refd to. [para. 16].

College Housing Co-Operative Ltd. et al. v. Baxter Student Housing Ltd. et al., [1976] 2 S.C.R. 475; 5 N.R. 515, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Caron (G.) (2011), 411 N.R. 89; 499 A.R. 309; 514 W.A.C. 309; 2011 SCC 5, refd to. [para. 16].

Lameman et al. v. Alberta et al. (2012), 522 A.R. 140; 544 W.A.C. 140; 2012 ABCA 59, refd to. [para. 16].

Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 20].

National Bank of Greece (Canada) et autres v. Simcoe & Erie General Assurance Co. et autres, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1029; 115 N.R. 42; 32 Q.A.C. 250, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161; [1985] 3 W.W.R. 481, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Lee, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1384; 104 N.R. 1; [1990] 1 W.W.R. 289, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Tran (Q.D.), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 951; 170 N.R. 81; 133 N.S.R.(2d) 81; 380 A.P.R. 81, refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Bryant (1984), 6 O.A.C. 118; 48 O.R.(2d) 732; 42 C.R.(3d) 212 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

R. v Bondy, 2013 ONCJ 268, refd to. [para. 28].

Pezim v. British Columbia Securities Commission et al., [1994] 2 S.C.R. 557; 168 N.R. 321; 46 B.C.A.C. 1; 75 W.A.C. 1; 1994 CanLII 103, refd to. [para. 30].

Reference Re Securities Act (Can.) (2011), 510 A.R. 200; 527 W.A.C. 200; 41 Alta. L.R.(5th) 145; 2011 ABCA 77, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Kirk (J.B.) (2014), 596 A.R. 9; 2014 ABQB 517, leave to appeal denied 2014 ABCA 373, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Hauser, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 984; 26 N.R. 541; 16 A.R. 91, refd to. [para. 31].

Alberta Securities Commission v. Brost et al. (2008), 440 A.R. 7; 438 W.A.C. 7; 2008 ABCA 326, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Aitkens (R.J.) (2015), 605 A.R. 100; 2015 ABPC 21, refd to. [para. 35].

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. 37].

R. v. Wigglesworth, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 541; 81 N.R. 161; 61 Sask.R. 105; 24 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 37].

PPG Industries Canada Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General) (1983), 146 D.L.R.(3d) 261 (B.C.C.A.), leave to appeal granted (1983), 49 N.R. 79 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Gibbs, 2001 BCPC 361, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Shah, [1992] B.C.J. No. 2716 (Prov. Ct.), disagreed with [paras. 37, 58].

R. v. Henry (D.B.) et al. (2005), 342 N.R. 259; 376 A.R. 1; 360 W.A.C. 1; 219 B.C.A.C. 1; 361 W.A.C. 1; 2005 SCC 76, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335, refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Shubley, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 3; 104 N.R. 81; 37 O.A.C. 63; 1990 CanLII 149, refd to. [para. 46].

Janes, Re (1985), 23 C.C.C.(3d) 566; 37 M.V.R. 180 (Ont. H.C.J.), refd to. [para. 55].

Renault v. Bell Asbestos Mines Ltd., [1980] C.A. 370, refd to. [para. 66].

Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291, refd to. [para. 67].

Reference Re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266, refd to. [para. 69].

R. v. Ferguson (M.E.), [2008] 1 S.C.R. 96; 371 N.R. 231; 425 A.R. 79; 418 W.A.C. 79; 2008 SCC 6, refd to. [para. 72].

Reference Re Sections 193 and 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1123; 109 N.R. 81; 68 Man.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 80].

Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Québec (Procureur général), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; 94 N.R. 167; 24 Q.A.C. 2, refd to. [para. 80].

British Columbia Teachers' Federation et al. v. Board of Education of School District No. 39 (Vancouver) et al. (2003), 178 B.C.A.C. 250; 292 W.A.C. 250; 2003 BCCA 100, refd to. [para. 80].

Blencoe v. Human Rights Commission (B.C.) et al., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 307; 260 N.R. 1; 141 B.C.A.C. 161; 231 W.A.C. 161; 2000 SCC 44, refd to. [para. 80].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 11(f) [para. 1].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Alberta, Hansard, Legislative Debates (June 26, 1989), p. 536 [para. 33].

Alberta, Legislature of Alberta Government Bills and Orders (Committee of the Whole) Minutes of Proceedings, 22nd Leg., 1st Sess. (July 31, 1989), p. 1127 [para. 33].

Coughlan and Currie, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (5th Ed.), p. 835 [para. 80].

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (5th Ed.), pp. 44-12 [para. 81]; 47-10, 47-11, 47-2 to 47-4 [para. 80];

Mendes, Erro, and Beaulac, Stéphane, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (5th Ed. 2013), pp. 667, 668 [para. 80].

Sullivan, Ruth, Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes (6th Ed. 2014), pp. 205, 207 [para. 21].

Counsel:

Don Young and Adrienne Wong (Alberta Securities Commission), for the Alberta Securities Commission;

Robert Normey, for the intervenor, Attorney General of Alberta;

Alexander Millman (Alexander Millman Law Office) and Steven J. Fix (Steven J. Fix Professional Corporation), for Jeremey Peers;

Hersh E. Wolch (Wolch Hursh deWit Silverberg & Watts), for the respondent, Robert Peers.

This application was heard on December 12, 2014, before Topolniski, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment on February 24, 2015.