R. v. Riddle, (1979) 18 A.R. 525 (SCC)

• Judge: Martland, Ritchie, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz, Estey and MacIntyre, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: October 02, 1979
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1979), 18 A.R. 525 (SCC)

R. v. Riddle (1979), 18 A.R. 525 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Riddle

Indexed As: R. v. Riddle

Supreme Court of Canada

Martland, Ritchie, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz, Estey and MacIntyre, JJ.

October 2, 1979.

Summary:

This case arose out of a charge against the accused of common assault. The information against the accused was dismissed by the Provincial Court after the Crown was unable to lead evidence to establish the offence charged. The Crown then laid another identical information against the accused, who pleaded autrefois acquit. The Provincial Court upheld the plea and the Crown's appeal was dismissed by the Alberta Supreme Court, Trial Division, in a judgment reported 1 A.R. 396. The Crown appealed.

The Alberta Court of Appeal in a judgment reported 4 A.R. 205 dismissed the appeal and upheld the plea of autrefois acquit. The Court of Appeal held that the provision for a certificate of dismissal under s. 743 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, did not supplant or abridge the common law right to raise a special plea of autrefois acquit in a summary conviction information. The Crown appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal and upheld the plea of autrefois acquit.

Criminal Law - Topic 4225

Procedure - Pleas - Plea of autrefois acquit - A summary conviction information against the accused was dismissed, when the Crown was unable to lead evidence to establish the offence charged - The Crown laid another identical information against the accused, who pleaded autrefois acquit without obtaining a certificate of the trial judge's order of dismissal pursuant to s. 743 of the Criminal Code - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the plea of autrefois acquit was available to the accused in a summary conviction proceeding - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 743 respecting a certificate of an order of dismissal did not supplant or abridge the common law right to raise the special plea of autrefois acquit - See paragraphs 5 to 21.

Criminal Law - Topic 4239

Procedure - Certificate of order of dismissal - General - Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, s. 743 - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the issuing of a certificate of an order of dismissal was an administrative and not a judicial act - See paragraphs 13 to 21.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Blair and Karashowsky (1975), 25 C.C.C.(2d) 47, appld. [para. 7].

R. v. Canadian Pacific Ltd. (1976), 1 A.R. 177; 32 C.C.C.(2d) 14, appld. [para. 7].

R. v. Cooper (1971), 3 C.C.C.(2d) 261, not folld. [para. 7].

R. v. Ross (1977), 34 C.C.C.(2d) 483 (B.C.C.A.), appld. [para. 7].

R. v. Davis and Lakehead Bag Co. (1977), 37 C.R.N.S. 303 (Ont. C.A.), appld. [para. 7].

R. v. O'Connell (1977), 14 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 36; 33 A.P.R. 36; 1 C.R.(3d) (P.E.I.C.A.), appld. [para. 7].

R. v. Firth (1970), 12 C.R.N.S. 184, appld. [para. 7].

R. v. Kinch (1974), 7 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 34; 3 A.P.R. 34; 20 C.C.C.(2d) 301, appld. [para. 7].

R. v. Osborne (1975), 11 N.B.R.(2d) 48; 7 A.P.R. 48; 25 C.C.C.(2d) 405 (N.B.C.A.), not folld. [para. 7].

Weymss v. Hopkins (1875), 10 L.R.Q.B. 378, consd. [para. 9].

Flatman v. Light, [1946] 1 K.B. 415 (C.C.A.), consd. [para. 9].

R. v. Badiuk (1930), 53 C.C.C. 63 (Man. C.A.), appld. [para. 11].

R. v. Hutchins (1880), 49 L.J.Mag. 64, appld. [para. 19].

Hancock v. Somes (1859), 28 L.J.Mag. 196, appld. [para. 20].

R. v. Myrshall (1971), 3 N.B.R.(2d) 754; 4 C.C.C. 156, not folld. [para. 21].

Tunnicliffe v. Tedd (1848), 5 C.B. 553; 136 E.R. 995, appld. [para. 26].

R. v. Stokes (1917), 29 C.C.C. 144 (Man. K.B.), appld. [para. 26].

R. v. Church Knowle (1837), 7 Ad. & E. 471; 112 E.R. 547, appld. [para. 27].

Vaughton v. Bradshaw (1860), 9 C.S.(N.S.) 103; 142 E.R. 40, consd. [para. 29].

Reed v. Nutt (1890), 24 Q.B.D. 672, consd. [para. 29].

R. v. Commodore Hotel (Windsor) Ltd. (1955), 111 C.C.C. 165 (Ont. H.C.), consd. [para. 29].

Burns v. Gan (1955), 112 C.C.C. 395 (Ont.Mag.Ct.), consd. [para. 29].

R. v. Hatherley (1971), 4 C.C.C.(2d) 242, appld. [para. 30].

Haynes v. Davis, [1915] 1 K.B. 332, appld. [para. 31].

R. v. Ecker and Fry (1929), 64 O.L.R. 1, appld. [para. 32].

Welch v. R., [1950] S.C.R. 412, appld. [para. 32].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 502, sect. 534, sect. 535, sect. 536, sect. 537 [para. 14]; sect. 735(1), sect. 736(3), sect. 739 [para. 23]; sect. 734, sect. 743 [para. 16].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Crankshaw's Criminal Code of Canada (7th Ed. 1959), p. 748 [para. 11].

Friedland, Double Jeopardy (1969), pp. 54, 57-59 [para. 29]; 113-114 [para. 9].

Hawkins, Pleas of the Crown (1726), Bk. II, c. 35, p. 368 [para. 6].

Howard, Res Judicata in the Criminal Law (1961), 3 Melbourne U.L. Rev. 101, 112 [para. 10].

Paley on Summary Convictions (9th Ed. 1926), p. 367 [para. 11].

Tremeear's Annotated Criminal Code (6th Ed. 1964), p. 1531 [para. 11].

Counsel:

Paul Chrumka, Q.C., and Donna J. Martinson, for the appellant;

Marlin Moore, for the respondent.

This case was heard on February 28, 1979, at Ottawa, Ontario, before MARTLAND, RITCHIE, PIGEON, DICKSON, BEETZ, ESTEY and McINTYRE, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On October 2, 1979, DICKSON, J., delivered the following judgment for the Supreme Court of Canada: