R. v. Read (G.), (1999) 181 Sask.R. 289 (QB)

• Judge: Klebuc, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: June 18, 1999
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (1999), 181 Sask.R. 289 (QB)

R. v. Read (G.) (1999), 181 Sask.R. 289 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] Sask.R. TBEd. AU.018

In The Matter Of Information #2116192 in the Provincial Court for Saskatchewan

And In The Matter Of an application made pursuant to part XXVI of the Criminal Code, part fifty-two of the Rules of Court for Saskatchewan, The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Young Offenders Act

Greg Read (applicant) v. Her Majesty The Queen and The Honourable Judge V. Meekma, a Youth Court judge (respondents)

(1998 C.N.J. No. 78)

Indexed As: R. v. Read (G.)

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Battleford

Klebuc, J.

June 18, 1999.

Summary:

The accused was charged with sexual offences. The accused applied for disclosure of records relating to the complainant under the Young Offenders Act and records main­tained by the RCMP relating to sexual of­fences committed by the complainant. The Youth Court judge concluded that the in­formation was not relevant and dismissed the application. The accused applied to quash the decision and for an order compelling dis­closure of the material.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench allowed the application to the extent of quashing the decision.

Criminal Law - Topic 8704.5

Young offenders - General principles - Jurisdiction - Courts - Disclosure - The accused, charged with sexual offences, learned that the complainant made the allegations while being questioned by police about his own criminal activity - Prior to the preliminary hearing, the ac­cused applied, under s. 45.1 of the Young Offenders Act, for disclosure of the com­plainant's records and statements - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that the accused was entitled to apply for disclosure and that the application was not premature - The court further stated that the accused, seeking disclosure of the complainant's records, was required to first establish that there was a "reasonable possibility" that the information sought was "logically probative" concerning the charges against the accused or the credi­bility of the young person - The Youth Court judge was then required to examine the information to determine the extent that it would assist the accused in making full answer and defence - See paragraphs 5 to 22.

Criminal Law - Topic 8704.5

Young offenders - General principles - Jurisdiction - Courts - Disclosure - The accused, charged with sexual offences, learned that the complainant made the allegations while being questioned by police about his own criminal activity - Prior to the preliminary hearing, the ac­cused applied, under s. 45.1 of the Young Offenders Act, for disclosure of the com­plainant's records and statements - The Crown objected - Neither the complainant nor the custodian of the information were given notice of the application - The Youth Court judge declined to order disclosure - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that the Youth Court judge committed incurable jurisdictional error in failing to ensure that notice of the application was given to the complainant and the custodian or in requiring waiver of the notice - See paragraph 23.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Strain (1994), 91 C.C.C.(3d) 568 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. L.J. (1991), 12 W.C.B.(2d) 611 (Ont. Prov. Div.), refd to. [para. 6].

Board of Education of Saskatoon West School Division, No. 42 v. J.A. and J.S. (1997), 160 Sask.R. 129 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 6].

Michael S., Re (1986), 17 W.C.B. 278 (Ont. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. R.D.S. - see Halifax Herald Ltd. v. Sparks, J.F.C.

Halifax Herald Ltd. v. Sparks, J.F.C. (1995), 142 N.S.R.(2d) 321; 407 A.P.R. 321; 98 C.C.C.(3d) 235 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Tapaquon, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 535; 159 N.R. 321; 116 Sask.R. 81; 59 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Barbeau, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 845; 140 N.R. 211; 49 Q.A.C. 220, refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326; 130 N.R. 277; 120 A.R. 161; 8 W.A.C. 161; 68 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 8 C.R.(4th) 277, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Blencowe (A.) (1997), 41 O.T.C. 181; 9 C.R.(5th) 320 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. O'Connor (H.P.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 411; 191 N.R. 1; 68 B.C.A.C. 1; 112 W.A.C. 1; [1996] 2 W.W.R. 153; 103 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 4 C.R.(4th) 1; 29 W.C.B.(2d) 152, refd to. [para. 17].

Statutes Noticed:

Young Offenders Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. Y-1, sect. 42, sect. 44.1(1)(k), sect. 45.1 [para. 4].

Counsel:

L.H. Francis, for the applicant;

J.E. McIvor, for the respondent.

This application was heard before Klebuc, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Battleford, who delivered the following judgment on June 18, 1999.