R. v. Quibell, (1988) 96 Sask.R. 243 (ProvCt)

• Judge: Gosselin, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: May 31, 1988
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (1988), 96 Sask.R. 243 (ProvCt)

R. v. Quibell (1988), 96 Sask.R. 243 (ProvCt)

MLB headnote and full text

Her Majesty The Queen v. Arnold Quibell

Indexed As: R. v. Quibell

Saskatchewan Provincial Court

Saskatoon, Saskatchewan

Gosselin, P.C.J.

May 31, 1988.

Summary:

The accused was charged with wilfully failing to provide suitable and adequate care for a dog, contrary to s. 402(1)(c) of the Criminal Code. The accused applied to quash the information or stay the proceed­ings.

The Saskatchewan Provincial Court dis­missed the application.

Editor's Note: This case is being reported at this time at the request of a subscriber.

Civil Rights - Topic 8369

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Dismissal of charge - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court stated that the violation of a Charter right is not per se a defence to a criminal charge - A Charter application is a sepa­rate application which seeks a remedy under the Charter - See paragraph 10.

Civil Rights - Topic 8588

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Practice - Notice to Attorney General - Section 8 of the Constitutional Questions Act required the defence to give notice to the Crown of its intention to seek a rem­edy under s. 24 of the Charter - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court held that giving notice under s. 8 was not requiring the defence to disclose its case to the Crown - See paragraphs 3 to 12.

Criminal Law - Topic 220

Statutory defences or exceptions - General - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8369 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4505

Procedure - Trial - Special duties of Crown - Duty to disclose evidence prior to trial - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court stated that the onus on the Crown to provide disclosure is based on the right of the accused to have disclosure - If the accused does not want disclosure, there is no obligation on the Crown to provide it - There is an onus on an accused desiring disclosure to request it - There is no obli­gation on the Crown to search out an accused to see if there is a desire for dis­closure - Disclosure does not have to be reduced to writing - The court approved of disclosure through direct verbal com­munication, including by telephone - See paragraphs 28 to 29, 31.

Criminal Law - Topic 4505

Procedure - Trial - Special duties of Crown - Duty to disclose evidence prior to trial - The defence waited 10 months from the date of the offence to request disclosure from the Crown - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court held that the defence could not then complain about a failure by the Crown to provide timely disclosure - The Crown had attempted to provide disclosure by telephone over a dozen times - A failure to disclose was due to a lack of response from the defence - The court held that the accused's rights were therefore not violated - See para­graphs 30, 34 to 39.

Statutes Noticed:

B.N.A. Act - see Constitution Act, 1867.

British North America Act - see Constitu­tion Act, 1867.

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 7 [paras. 7-8, 13-15]; sect. 10(b) [para. 29]; sect. 24 [para. 3].

Constitution Act, 1867, sect. 91 [para. 3].

Constitutional Questions Act, R.S.S. 1978, c. C-29, sect. 8 [paras. 3, 6-7].

Counsel:

T.R. Hinz, for the Crown;

B.J. Slusar, for the accused.

This application was heard before Gosse­lin, P.C.J., of the Saskatchewan Provincial Court, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, whose decision was delivered orally on May 31, 1988.