R. v. Reynolds, (1984) 51 A.R. 290 (NWTSC)

• Judge: de Weerdt, J.
• Court: Supreme Court of Northwest Territories (Canada)
• Case Date: January 30, 1984
• Jurisdiction: Northwest Territories
• Citations: (1984), 51 A.R. 290 (NWTSC)

R. v. Reynolds (1984), 51 A.R. 290 (NWTSC)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Reynolds

(No. SC 2924)

Indexed As: R. v. Reynolds

Northwest Territories Supreme Court

de Weerdt, J.

February 3, 1984.

Summary:

The accused was charged with abducting a child (her daughter) "in relation to whom no custody order has been made by a court", contrary to s. 250.2(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada. The child had been subject to a custody order, but it had expired and had no effect on the date of the alleged offence.

The Northwest Territories Territorial Court, in a judgment not reported in this series of reports, dismissed the charge and held that s. 250.2(1) did not apply where a custody order had been made in the past. The Crown appealed.

The Northwest Territories Supreme Court allowed the appeal and ordered the trial to continue, because the phrase "in relation to whom no custody order has been made by a court" was to be interpreted to mean that s. 250.2(1) applied unless a custody order was in effect at the time of the alleged offence.

Criminal Law - Topic 1455

Offences against person and reputation - Abduction of child - Meaning of "no custody order has been made" - Section 250.2(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada made it an offence to abduct a child "in relation to whom no custody order has been made by a court" - The Northwest Territories Supreme Court held that if a child was subject to an expired custody order that had no effect on the date of an alleged offence, no custody order had been made within the meaning of s. 250.2(1) of the Code - See paragraphs 2 to 27.

Statutes - Topic 499

Interpretation - General - The Northwest Territories Supreme Court referred to the mischief, literal and golden rules of interpretation and discussed whether there were three separate rules of interpretation or whether they had become fused into one rule -See paragraphs 12 to 22.

Statutes - Topic 2402

Interpretation - Words and phrases - General principles - Avoidance of absurdity - Section 250.2(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada made it an offence to abduct a child "in relation to whom no custody order has been made by a court" - The Northwest Territories Supreme Court interpreted s. 250.2(1) to mean that, where a child was subject to an expired custody order that had no effect on the date of an alleged offence, no custody order had been made - The court held that to interpret the section otherwise would lead to an absurdity which would be "completely at odds with the evident object and scheme of the legislation" - See paragraphs 2 to 27.

Words and Phrases

No custody order has been made - The Northwest Territories Supreme Court referred to the meaning of "no custody order has been made" as found in s. 250.2(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada - See paragraphs 2 to 27.

Cases Noticed:

Re Knechtel, [1975] 4 W.W.R. 203; 35 C.R.N.S. 185 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Thomas (1977), 5 B.C.L.R. 179; 38 C.C.C.(2d) 244 (B.C.Co.Ct.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Colman, [1981] 3 W.W.R. 572; 29 N.R. 170 (Alta. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Robinson, [1951] S.C.R. 522; 12 C.R. 101; 100 C.C.C. 1, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Philips Electronics Ltd. (1980), 55 C.C.C.(2d) 312; 30 O.R.(2d) 129; 116 D.L.R.(3d) 298, affd. [1981] 2 S.C.R. 264; 62 C.C.C.(2d) 384(n); refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Paul, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 621; 67 C.C.C.(2d) 97; 27 C.R.(3d) 193; 138 D.L.R.(3d) 455; 42 N.R. 1 (S.C.C.), appld. [paras. 9, 16, 24].

Reference Re Regulations (Chemicals) Under The War Measures Act, [1943] S.C.R. 1; 79 C.C.C. 1; [1943] 1 D.L.R. 248, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Parkway Chrysler Plymouth Ltd. (1976), 32 C.C.C.(2d) 116, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. McBurney, [1975] 5 W.W.R. 554; 24 C.C.C.(2d) 44 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 250.2(1) [para. 1]; sect. 250.2(2), sect. 250.3, sect. 250.4, sect. 250.5 [para. 20].

Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. I-23, sect. 11 [para. 8].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Cross, Statutory Interpretation, p. 52 [para. 14].

Driedger, Statutes: The Mischievous Literal Golden Rule (1981), 59 Can. Bar Rev. 780 [paras. 12, 13].

Counsel:

J. Shipley, for the Crown;

P. Spence, for the accused.

This appeal was heard on January 30, 1984, before de Weerdt, J., of the Northwest Territories Supreme Court, who delivered the following judgment on February 3, 1984: