R. v. Redbreast (M.), (2004) 362 A.R. 369 (QB)

• Judge: Watson, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: June 11, 2004
• Citations: (2004), 362 A.R. 369 (QB);2004 ABQB 459

R. v. Redbreast (M.) (2004), 362 A.R. 369 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] A.R. TBEd. JL.027

Her Majesty the Queen v. Michael Redbreast

(0214-25129-Q2; 2004 ABQB 459)

Indexed As: R. v. Redbreast (M.)

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Watson, J.

June 11, 2004.

Summary:

The Crown applied under s. 9(2) of the Canada Evidence Act for leave to cross-examine a Crown witness with respect to a prior inconsistent statement.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench granted the application.

Evidence - Topic 4765

Witnesses - Examination - Prior inconsistent statements - Cross-examination on - By party producing the witness - The Crown applied under s. 9(2) of the Canada Evidence Act for leave to cross-examine a Crown witness (Keewatin) with respect to a prior inconsistent statement - The circumstances in which Keewatin's prior statement was taken by the police were such that the Crown would have a difficult time proving the voluntariness of the statement - The defence objected to the cross-examination, focusing on the involuntariness of Keewatin's prior statement - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench granted the Crown's application - It was not adjudicatively unfair to the accused to permit Crown counsel to cross-examine Keewatin on his prior statement.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Milgaard, [1971] 2 W.W.R. 266; 2 C.C.C.(3d) 206; 14 C.R.N.S. 34; 1971 CarswellSask 26 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied [1971] S.C.R. x; 4 C.C.C.(2d) 566, refd to. [para. 3, footnote 3].

R. v. Corbett, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 670; 85 N.R. 81; 64 C.R.(3d) 1; 41 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 28 B.C.L.R.(2d) 145; [1988] 4 W.W.R. 481; 34 C.R.R. 54; 1988 CarswellBC 252, refd to. [para. 4, footnote 4].

R. v. Potvin, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 525; 93 N.R. 42; 21 Q.A.C. 258; 47 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 68 C.R.(3d) 193; 42 C.R.R. 44, refd to. [para. 4, footnote 4].

R. v. M.C.H., [1998] 2 S.C.R. 449; 230 N.R. 1; 113 O.A.C. 97; 127 C.C.C.(3d) 479; 18 C.R.(5th) 135; 163 D.L.R.(4th) 577, refd to. [para. 6, footnote 5].

R. v. Oickle (R.F.), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 3; 259 N.R. 227; 187 N.S.R.(2d) 201; 585 A.P.R. 201; 147 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 190 D.L.R.(4th) 257; 36 C.R.(5th) 1; 2000 CarswellNS 257; 2000 SCC 38, refd to. [para. 6, footnote 6].

R. v. Harrer (H.M.), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 562; 186 N.R. 329; 64 B.C.A.C. 161; 105 W.A.C. 161; 101 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 42 C.R.(4th) 269; 128 D.L.R.(4th) 98; 32 C.R.R.(2d) 273; 1995 CarswellBC 1098, refd to. [para. 12, footnote 7].

R. v. McMillan (G.) (2003), 176 O.A.C. 215; 2003 CarswellOnt 3398 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 12, footnote 8].

R. v. Schell (K.A.) (2004), 348 A.R. 306; 321 W.A.C. 306; 2004 ABCA 143, refd to. [para. 13, footnote 9].

R. v. K.G.B., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 740; 148 N.R. 241; 61 O.A.C. 1; 79 C.C.C.(3d) 257; 19 C.R.(4th) 1; 1993 CarswellOnt 76, refd to. [para. 14, footnote 10].

R. v. Mannion, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 272; 69 N.R. 189; 75 A.R. 16; 53 C.R.(3d) 193; 28 C.C.C.(3d) 544; [1986] 6 W.W.R. 525; 47 Alta. L.R.(2d) 177; 31 D.L.R.(4th) 712; 25 C.R.R. 182; 1986 CarswellAlta 190, refd to. [para. 14, footnote 11].

R. v. Deacon, [1947] S.C.R. 53; 89 C.C.C. 1; 3 C.R. 265; [1947] 3 D.L.R. 772; 1947 CarswellMan 1, refd to. [para. 14, footnote 12].

R. v. McInroy and Rouse, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 588; 23 N.R. 589; 5 C.R.(3d) 125; [1978] 6 W.W.R. 585; 42 C.C.C.(2d) 481; 89 D.L.R.(3d) 609; 1978 CarswellBC 508; 1978 CarswellBC 561, refd to. [para. 16, footnote 13].

R. v. Wolf, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 107; [1974] 6 W.W.R. 368; 2 N.R. 415; 17 C.C.C.(2d) 425; 27 C.R.N.S. 150; 47 D.L.R.(3d) 741; 1974 CarswellAlta 98, refd to. [para. 24, footnote 14].

R. v. W.A.W. (2001), 277 A.R. 226; 242 W.A.C. 226; 153 C.C.C.(3d) 56; 2001 ABCA 77, refd to. [para. 29, footnote 16].

R. v. D.D., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 275; 259 N.R. 156; 136 O.A.C. 201; 36 C.R.(5th) 261; 148 C.C.C.(3d) 41; 191 D.L.R.(4th) 60; 2000 CarswellOnt 3255; 2000 SCC 43, refd to. [para. 29, footnote 17].

R. v. Buric (G.J.) et al., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 535; 209 N.R. 241; 98 O.A.C. 398; 114 C.C.C.(3d) 95; 32 O.R.(3d) 320; 42 C.R.R.(2d) 187, affing. (1996), 90 O.A.C. 321; 106 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 48 C.R.(4th) 149; 28 O.R.(3d) 737; 36 C.R.R.(2d) 62 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32, footnote 18].

R. v. Stewart, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 748; 12 N.R. 201; 1 A.R. 455; [1976] 6 W.W.R. 644; 31 C.C.C.(2d) 497; 71 D.L.R.(3d) 449; 1976 CarswellAlta 132, refd to. [para. 35, footnote 19].

Statutes Noticed:

Canada Evidence Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-5, sect. 9(2) [para. 2].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Driedger, Elmer A., Construction of Statutes (2nd Ed. 1983), p. 87 [para. 3, footnote 2].

Counsel:

Ashley Finlayson, for the Crown;

Peter J. Royal, Q.C., for the defendant.

This application was heard on June 11, 2004, before Watson, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton. The following judgment was delivered orally by Watson, J., on June 11, 2004, and was filed on June 16, 2004.