R. v. Ritter (M.), (2006) 421 A.R. 310 (PC)

• Judge: Fraser, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: June 19, 2006
• Citations: (2006), 421 A.R. 310 (PC);2006 ABPC 200

R. v. Ritter (M.) (2006), 421 A.R. 310 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2007] A.R. TBEd. JL.143

Her Majesty the Queen v. Michael Ritter (051397545P10101; 2006 ABPC 200)

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

Alberta Provincial Court

Fraser, P.C.J.

August 2, 2006.

Summary:

The accused was charged that between October 28, 2003 and November 25, 2005, while being at large on a recognizance with a condition that he surrender all his passports and not apply for any passports without leave of the court, he failed to comply with that condition, without lawful excuse, contrary to s. 145(3) of the Criminal Code.

The Alberta Provincial Court convicted the accused.

Editor's Note: An appeal by the accused in this matter was dismissed - see (2007) 422 A.R. 1; 415 W.A.C. 1.

Courts - Topic 126

Stare decisis - Authority of judicial decisions - Courts of superior jurisdiction - Decisions binding on provincial courts - [See Criminal Law - Topic 6705].

Criminal Law - Topic 6705

Recognizances and undertakings - Validity of recognizance - Ritter was charged with offences in California - A provisional arrest warrant was issued in Canada - Ritter appeared and was granted bail on conditions including that he not apply for passports - The Minister of Justice issued an authority to proceed (ATP) - Ritter was charged with breach of recognizance for allegedly applying for a Belize passport - Ritter applied for a declaration that the recognizance entered into on the provisional warrant lapsed once the ATP was issued - A Court of Queen's Bench judge dismissed the application, holding that the recognizance remained in full force and effect - When the charge came on for hearing, the accused argued that the recognizance was not valid, notwithstanding the prior ruling of the Queen's Bench judge - The Alberta Provincial Court held that it was bound by that decision and in any event agreed with it and would have made the same finding had it not been bound - The court stated that a recognizance did not become invalid as a result of the provisional warrant being replaced by the ATP - The recognizance remained in place and its terms continued to apply and was in full force and effect during the dates set out in the information - See paragraphs 5 to 7.

Criminal Law - Topic 6775

Recognizances and undertakings - Recognizance of bail - Breach - Mens rea - The accused was charged that between October 28, 2003 and November 25, 2005, while being at large on a recognizance with a condition that he surrender all his passports and not apply for any passports without leave of the court, he failed to comply with that condition, without lawful excuse, contrary to s. 145(3) of the Criminal Code - Although the accused turned in his Canadian passport, he did not turn in his Belizean passport, and applied for and received a new Belizean passport in his new name without seeking leave of the court - The accused claimed that he lacked the necessary mens rea to sustain a conviction - The Alberta Provincial Court discussed the test for mens rea for this offence and held that the accused had the requisite intent to sustain a conviction - The court rejected the defence of due diligence and officially induced error - See paragraphs 8 to 29.

Cases Noticed:

United States of America v. Ritter (2006), 400 A.R. 305; 2006 ABQB 431, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. To (W.H.) (1992), 16 B.C.A.C. 223; 28 W.A.C. 223 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Ludlow (R.J.) (1999), 125 B.C.A.C. 194; 204 W.A.C. 194; 136 C.C.C.(3d) 460 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Alexander (B.) (1999), 171 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 74; 525 A.P.R. 74 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Lepage (J.P.), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 654; 178 N.R. 81; 79 O.A.C. 191; 95 C.C.C.(3d) 385, refd to. [para. 27].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 145(3) [para. 1].

Authors and Works Noticed:

McWilliams, Peter K., Canadian Criminal Evidence (2nd Ed. 1984), p. 598 [para. 8].

Counsel:

G. Lepp, Q.C., for the Crown;

R. Davidson, Q.C., for the defence.

This matter was heard on April 24-28 and June 19, 2006, in Edmonton, Alberta, before Fraser, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, who delivered the following decision in Edmonton and filed it in Calgary on August 2, 2006.