R. v. Robinson (J.S.), (2004) 181 Man.R.(2d) 75 (PC)

• Judge: Giesbrecht, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Manitoba (Canada)
• Case Date: January 23, 2004
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (2004), 181 Man.R.(2d) 75 (PC)

R. v. Robinson (J.S.) (2004), 181 Man.R.(2d) 75 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. FE.003

Her Majesty The Queen v. Jessie Seeger Robinson (accused)

Indexed As: R. v. Robinson (J.S.)

Manitoba Provincial Court

Giesbrecht, P.C.J.

January 23, 2004.

Summary:

An accused charged with speeding sought a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter on the ground that ss. 12-16 of the Manitoba Evidence Act, which required the court to administer an oath, affirmation or declaration to any witness called to give evidence, violated s. 2(a) of the Charter (freedom of conscience and religion). The accused submitted that the sections required her to make a religious statement and reveal her conscience if she chose to testify in her own defence. Further, the accused alleged that the sections violated equality rights under s. 15 of the Charter.

The Manitoba Provincial Court held that the challenged sections did not violate s. 2(a) or s. 15.

Civil Rights - Topic 400

Freedom of conscience and religion - Infringement of - Witness oath or affirmation - Sections 12-16 of the Manitoba Evidence required the court to administer an oath, affirmation or declaration to any witness who wished to testify - An accused submitted that ss. 12-16 violated s. 2(a) of the Charter, because it required her to make a religious statement and reveal her conscience as a precondition to testifying - The Manitoba Provincial Court held that the sections did not violate freedom of conscience and religion - The sections had a secular, not religious, purpose, being to ensure as far as possible that witnesses testified truthfully - A witness need not object to swearing an oath on the Bible before choosing to affirm or declare - Accordingly, choosing to affirm or declare did not coerce a witness into making a public statement revealing her conscience - The fact that a witness chose to affirm or declare revealed nothing about religious beliefs - See paragraphs 1 to 70.

Civil Rights - Topic 5502

Equality and protection of the law - General principles and definitions - Whether right to equality abridged - Sections 12-16 of the Manitoba Evidence required the court to administer an oath, affirmation or declaration to any witness who wished to testify - Section 15(2) provided that where a witness objected to being sworn on the Bible or declared that such oath was not binding upon his conscience, the witness could have an oath administered "in such manner and form, and with such ceremonies, as he declares to be binding" - The Manitoba Provincial Court rejected the submission that ss. 12-16 of the Act violated equality rights under s. 15 of the Charter - See paragraphs 71 to 77.

Evidence - Topic 4541

Witnesses - Attendance and oath - Oath - General - [See Civil Rights - Topic 400 ].

Evidence - Topic 4571

Witnesses - Attendance and oath - Affirmation - General - [See Civil Rights - Topic 400 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Anderson, [2001] M.J. No. 34 (Prov. Ct.), agreed with [para. 14].

R. v. Skinner, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1235; 109 N.R. 241; 98 N.S.R.(2d) 181; 263 A.P.R. 181, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Davis (A.A.) (1999), 143 Man.R.(2d) 105 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 24].

Southam Inc. v. Hunter (1984), 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291; 14 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd. (1985), 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 385 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 713; 71 N.R. 161; 19 O.A.C. 239, refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Edwards Books and Art Ltd. - see R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al.

Omychund v. Barker (1744), 26 E.R. 15 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 41].

McGowan v. Maryland (1961), 366 U.S. 420, refd to. [para. 45].

Zylberberg v. Board of Education of Sudbury et al. (1988), 29 O.A.C. 23; 34 C.R.R. 1 (C.A.), dist. [para. 58].

Manitoba Association for Rights and Liberties Inc. et al. v. Manitoba (1992), 82 Man.R.(2d) 39 (Q.B.), dist. [para. 58].

R. v. Ah Wooey (1902), 9 B.C. 569, refd to. [para. 74].

R. v. Chaulk and Morrissette, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1303; 119 N.R. 161; 69 Man.R.(2d) 161, refd to. [para. 83].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 2(a) [para. 22].

Evidence Act, R.S.M. 1987, c. C-150; C.C.S.M., c. C-150, sect. 12, sect. 13, sect. 14, sect. 15, sect. 16 [para. 4].

Counsel:

Cynthia Devine and Kusham Sharma, for the Crown;

John Skinner, for the accused.

This application was heard before Giesbrecht, P.C.J., of the Manitoba Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on January 23, 2004.