R. v. Rodrigue (J.J.), (1994) 53 B.C.A.C. 275 (YukCA)

• Judge: Lambert, Finch and Hutcheon, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Yukon Territory)
• Case Date: December 20, 1994
• Jurisdiction: Yukon
• Citations: (1994), 53 B.C.A.C. 275 (YukCA)

R. v. Rodrigue (J.J.) (1994), 53 B.C.A.C. 275 (YukCA);

    87 W.A.C. 275

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

On Appeal From the Decision of the Honourable Mr. Justice D.C. McDonald rendered on May 5, 1994, concerning disclosure of evidence in the French language in respect of an application made under subsection 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. James Joseph Rodrigue (appellant)

(YU00284)

Indexed As: R. v. Rodrigue (J.J.)

Yukon Court of Appeal

Lambert, Finch and Hutcheon, JJ.A.

December 20, 1994.

Summary:

The accused was charged with three counts under the Narcotic Control Act. He elected to be tried in French. At the preliminary inquiry he applied to have the Crown pro­vide him with evidence in the French lan­guage. The preliminary inquiry judge declined jurisdiction but adjourned the inquiry to allow for an application in the Supreme Court.

The Yukon Supreme Court dismissed the accused's application for disclosure of the evidence in French and for a stay of pro­ceedings. The accused appealed. The Crown applied to strike out the appeal on the ground that no right of appeal existed.

The Yukon Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's application and dismissed the appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 8363

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Jurisdiction (incl. court of competent jurisdiction) - At his preliminary inquiry, an accused applied for disclosure by the Crown of the evi­dence in the French lang­uage - The Yukon Court of Appeal held that the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to make the order, under its jurisdiction to grant relief under s. 24(1) of the Charter - See para­graphs 4 to 6.

Criminal Law - Topic 4825

Appeals - Indictable offences - Right of appeal - From an interlocutory decision - At his preliminary inquiry, an accused applied for disclosure by the Crown of the evidence in the French language - The Supreme Court dismissed the application - The accused did not fall within s. 675 or 784 of the Criminal Code, the only sec­tions which provided a right of appeal - The Yukon Court of Appeal held therefore that there was no jurisdiction to appeal from an order made in the midst of, and as part of, the trial process, unless that order was made without jurisdiction, or was unrelated to the trial process or amounted to an acquittal.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Smith (M.H.), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1120; 102 N.R. 205; 63 Man.R.(2d) 81; 52 C.C.C.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Jewitt, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 128; 61 N.R. 159; [1985] 6 W.W.R. 127; 21 C.C.C.(3d) 7; 20 D.L.R.(4th) 651; 47 C.R.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 7].

Kourtessis et al. v. Minister of National Revenue et al., [1993] 2 S.C.R. 53; 153 N.R. 1; 27 B.C.A.C. 81; 45 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Meltzer and Laison, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1764; 96 N.R. 391; 49 C.C.C.(3d) 453; 70 C.R.(3d) 383, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Mills, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 863; 67 N.R. 241; 16 O.A.C. 81; 52 C.R.(3d) 1; 29 D.L.R.(4th) 161; 26 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Beare; R. v. Higgins (1987), 56 Sask.R. 173; 34 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (C.A.), revd. on other grounds [1988] 2 S.C.R. 387; 88 N.R. 205; 71 Sask.R. 1; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 57; [1989] 1 W.W.R. 97; 66 C.R.(3d) 97, dist. [para. 16].

R. v. Ruston (1991), 71 Man.R.(2d) 49; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 419 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Daniels (C.M.) (1991), 93 Sask.R. 144; 4 W.A.C. 144; 65 C.C.C.(3d) 366 (C.A.), dist. [para. 16].

R. v. Laporte (R.A.) et al. (1993), 113 Sask.R. 34; 52 W.A.C. 34; 84 C.C.C.(3d) 343 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Sterling (R.), Sterling (L.) and Ster­ling (T.) (1993), 113 Sask.R. 81; 52 W.A.C. 81; 84 C.C.C.(3d) 65 (C.A.), dist. [para. 16].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 24 [paras. 16, 32]; sect. 24(1) [para. 5].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 675 [paras. 14, 15]; sect. 784 [paras. 14, 15].

Counsel:

R. Garson and M. Francoeur, for the respondent;

M. LaFlamme, for the appellant.

This appeal was heard on September 27 and 28, 1994, at Vancouver, British Colum­bia, before Lambert, Finch and Hutcheon, JJ.A., of the Yukon Court of Appeal.

On December 20, 1994, Hutcheon, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the court.