R. v. Richardson, (1980) 26 A.R. 558 (CA)

JudgeLieberman, J.A., Moshansky, J. (ad hoc) and Harradence, J.A.
CourtCourt of Appeal (Alberta)
Case DateDecember 22, 1980
Citations(1980), 26 A.R. 558 (CA)

R. v. Richardson (1980), 26 A.R. 558 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Richardson

(13801)

Indexed As: R. v. Richardson

Alberta Court of Appeal

Lieberman, J.A., Moshansky, J. (ad hoc) and Harradence, J.A.

December 22, 1980.

Summary:

This case arose out of a charge against the accused of possession of a narcotic contrary to s. 3(1) of the Narcotic Control Act. At trial the provincial court refused to admit a certificate of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles respecting ownership of the vehicle in which the accused was found. The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench in a judgment unreported in this series of reports allowed the Crown's appeal and ordered a new trial. The accused appealed.

The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, quashed the order for a new trial and held that the certificate was inadmissible in a prosecution under the Narcotic Control Act, notwithstanding s. 105(1) of the Motor Vehicle Administration Act, which provided for the admissibility of such certificates.

Evidence - Topic 1693

Hearsay rule exceptions - Official statements - Certificates - Admission of - General - S. 105(1) of the Motor Vehicle Administration Act, S.A. 1975, c. 68, provided that a certificate of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles respecting ownership was admissible in evidence - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that a registrar's certificate was inadmissible in a prosecution under the Narcotic Control Act, notwithstanding s. 105(1).

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Brooks, 81 C.C.C. 240 (N.S. S.C.), not folld. [para. 7].

Findlay v. Findlay (1862), 31 L.J. Mat. 149, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Newman, Dears C.C. 85, refd to. [para. 10].

Marshall v. The Queen, [1961] S.C.R. 123; 129 C.C.C. 232; 26 D.L.R.(2d) 459, appld. [para. 17].

R. v. John & Murray Motors Ltd. (1979), 8 C.R.(3d) 80, dist. [para. 23].

Statutes Noticed:

British North America Act, 1867, sect. 129 [para. 7].

Canada Evidence Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. E-10, sect. 37 [paras. 5, 16].

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 7(2) [paras. 6, 15].

Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. I-23, sect. 27(2) [para. 14].

Motor Vehicle Administration Act, S.A. 1975, c. 68, sect. 105(1) [para. 2].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Phipson on Evidence (12th Ed.), p. 263, para. 624; p. 288, para. 663 [para. 3]; p. 467, para. 1116 [para. 8]; p. 747, para. 1697 [para. 9].

Counsel:

D.F. Reay, for the appellant;

S.R. Creagh, for the respondent.

This case was heard before LIEBERMAN, J.A., MOSHANSKY, J. (ad hoc), and HARRADENCE, J.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal.

On December 22, 1980, HARRADENCE, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the Court of Appeal:

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • R. v. Connor, (1990) 98 N.S.R.(2d) 356 (ProvCt)
    • Canada
    • Nova Scotia Provincial Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
    • 9 octobre 1990
    ...(B.C.C.A.), consd. [para. 9]. R. v. Albright, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 383; 79 N.R. 129; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 105, consd. [para. 9]. R. v. Richardson (1980), 26 A.R. 558; 57 C.C.C.(2d) 403 (C.A.), consd. [para. R. v. Yerxa (1978), 21 N.B.R.(2d) 569; 37 A.P.R. 569; 42 C.C.C.(2d) 117 (C.A.), consd. [para. 12......
  • R. v. Bell (T.M.), 2001 BCCA 99
    • Canada
    • British Columbia Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
    • 7 février 2001
    ...Licensing and registration of motor vehicles - Registration - Proof of - [See Evidence - Topic 1693 ]. Cases Noticed: R. v. Richardson (1980), 26 A.R. 558; 57 C.C.C.(2d) 403 (C.A.), not appld. [para. R. v. Albright (1987), 79 N.R. 129; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 105 (S.C.C.), appld. [para. 5]. R. v. Mar......
  • R. v. Bilodeau (J.G.), (1994) 154 A.R. 363 (ProvCt)
    • Canada
    • Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
    • 12 août 1994
    ...paragraphs 8 to 17. Cases Noticed: R. v. Tatomir (1989), 99 A.R. 188; 51 C.C.C.(3d) 321 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 3]. R. v. Richardson (1980), 26 A.R. 558; 57 C.C.C.(2d) 403 (C.A.), dist. [para. R. v. Albright, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 383; 79 N.R. 129; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 105, refd to. [para. 4]. R. v. Por......
  • R. v. Engler (M.), (2015) 615 A.R. 232 (PC)
    • Canada
    • Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
    • 11 août 2014
    ...Crown's intention to introduce it in evidence. The Alberta Provincial Court held that it was bound by the decision in R. v. Richardson (1980), 26 A.R. 558 (C.A.) to rule the Certificate inadmissible for non-compliance with s. 259(5), even if the Richardson decision was no longer Courts - To......
4 cases
  • R. v. Connor, (1990) 98 N.S.R.(2d) 356 (ProvCt)
    • Canada
    • Nova Scotia Provincial Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
    • 9 octobre 1990
    ...(B.C.C.A.), consd. [para. 9]. R. v. Albright, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 383; 79 N.R. 129; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 105, consd. [para. 9]. R. v. Richardson (1980), 26 A.R. 558; 57 C.C.C.(2d) 403 (C.A.), consd. [para. R. v. Yerxa (1978), 21 N.B.R.(2d) 569; 37 A.P.R. 569; 42 C.C.C.(2d) 117 (C.A.), consd. [para. 12......
  • R. v. Bell (T.M.), 2001 BCCA 99
    • Canada
    • British Columbia Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
    • 7 février 2001
    ...Licensing and registration of motor vehicles - Registration - Proof of - [See Evidence - Topic 1693 ]. Cases Noticed: R. v. Richardson (1980), 26 A.R. 558; 57 C.C.C.(2d) 403 (C.A.), not appld. [para. R. v. Albright (1987), 79 N.R. 129; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 105 (S.C.C.), appld. [para. 5]. R. v. Mar......
  • R. v. Bilodeau (J.G.), (1994) 154 A.R. 363 (ProvCt)
    • Canada
    • Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
    • 12 août 1994
    ...paragraphs 8 to 17. Cases Noticed: R. v. Tatomir (1989), 99 A.R. 188; 51 C.C.C.(3d) 321 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 3]. R. v. Richardson (1980), 26 A.R. 558; 57 C.C.C.(2d) 403 (C.A.), dist. [para. R. v. Albright, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 383; 79 N.R. 129; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 105, refd to. [para. 4]. R. v. Por......
  • R. v. Engler (M.), (2015) 615 A.R. 232 (PC)
    • Canada
    • Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
    • 11 août 2014
    ...Crown's intention to introduce it in evidence. The Alberta Provincial Court held that it was bound by the decision in R. v. Richardson (1980), 26 A.R. 558 (C.A.) to rule the Certificate inadmissible for non-compliance with s. 259(5), even if the Richardson decision was no longer Courts - To......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT