R. v. Sandmaier (S.L.), (2005) 396 A.R. 275 (QB)

• Judge: Watson, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: December 01, 2005
• Citations: (2005), 396 A.R. 275 (QB);2006 ABQB 66

R. v. Sandmaier (S.L.) (2005), 396 A.R. 275 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2006] A.R. TBEd. AP.103

Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) v. Steven Lee Sandmaier (appellant)

(030195937S1; 2006 ABQB 66)

Indexed As: R. v. Sandmaier (S.L.)

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Watson, J.

December 1, 2005.

Summary:

An accused charged with two drinking and driving offences was apprehended on a warrant two months after the alleged offences. He was arrested and strip-searched. The trial judge held that the police lacked reasonable and probable grounds to strip-search the accused, thereby violating his s. 8 Charter rights. The trial judge determined that he could not grant a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter, because the time between the offences and the breach meant that the required nexus between the offences and Charter breach was not present. The accused was convicted of one offence and the other was conditionally stayed under the Kienapple principle. The accused appealed, submitting that the trial judge erred in refusing to stay the proceedings.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the appeal. The trial judge erred in failing to find the required nexus. Accordingly, it was open to the trial judge to grant a stay of proceedings if such was "just and appropriate". The court was unable, on the facts, to determine whether the trial judge would have granted a stay but for the error. Normally, a new trial would be ordered. However, where the accused had already served his sentence and part of his driving suspension, the court exercised its appellate jurisdiction to not order a new trial. That remedy was tantamount to an acquittal.

Civil Rights - Topic 8374

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Stay of proceedings - An accused charged with two drinking and driving offences was apprehended on a warrant two months after the alleged offences - He was arrested and strip-searched - The trial judge held that the police lacked reasonable and probable grounds to strip-search the accused, thereby violating his s. 8 Charter rights - The judge determined that he could not grant a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter, because the time between the offences and the breach meant that the required nexus between the offences and Charter breach was not present - The accused was convicted of one offence and the other was conditionally stayed under the Kienapple principle - The accused appealed, submitting that the judge erred in refusing to stay the proceedings - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the appeal - The judge erred in failing to find the required nexus - Accordingly, it was open to the judge to grant a stay of proceedings if such was "just and appropriate" - The court was unable, on the facts, to determine whether the judge would have granted a stay but for the error - Normally, a new trial would be ordered - However, where the accused had already served his sentence and part of his driving suspension, the court exercised its appellate jurisdiction to not order a new trial - That remedy was tantamount to an acquittal.

Criminal Law - Topic 7640

Summary conviction proceedings - Appeals - New trials - Bars - Where sentence fully or partially served - [See Civil Rights - Topic 7640 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Kienapple, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729; 1 N.R. 322; 26 C.R.N.S. 1; 15 C.C.C.(2d) 524; 44 D.L.R.(3d) 351; 1974 CarswellOnt 8, refd to. [para. 1, footnote 2].

R. v. Feeney (M.), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 13; 212 N.R. 83; 91 B.C.A.C. 1; 148 W.A.C. 1; 115 C.C.C.(3d) 129; 44 C.R.R.(2d) 1; [1997] 6 W.W.R. 634; 7 C.R.(5th) 101; 1997 CarswellBC 1015, refd to. [para. 4, footnote 4].

R. v. Golden (I.V.), [2001] 3 S.C.R. 679; 279 N.R. 1; 153 O.A.C. 201; 159 C.C.C.(3d) 449; 207 D.L.R.(4th) 18; 47 C.R.(5th) 1; 2001 CarswellOnt 4301; 2001 SCC 83, refd to. [para. 6, footnote 5].

R. v. Waterfield, [1964] 1 Q.B. 164; [1963] 3 W.L.R. 946; 48 Cr. App. Rep. 42; [1963] 3 All E.R. 659, refd to. [para. 8, footnote 6].

Brown et al. v. Durham Regional Police Force (1998), 116 O.A.C. 126; 21 C.R.(5th) 1; 167 D.L.R.(4th) 672; 131 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 39 M.V.R.(3d) 133; 59 C.R.R.(2d) 5; 43 O.R.(3d) 223; 1998 CarswellOnt 5020 (C.A.), leave to appeal granted (1999), 252 N.R. 198; 133 O.A.C. 200 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 8, footnote 6].

R. v. Simpson (R.) (1993), 60 O.A.C. 327; 43 M.V.R.(2d) 1; 12 O.R.(3d) 182; 20 C.R.(4th) 1; 79 C.C.C.(3d) 482; 14 C.R.R.(2d) 338; 1993 CarswellOnt 727 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8, footnote 6].

R. v. Kokesch, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 3; 121 N.R. 161; 61 C.C.C.(3d) 207; 1 C.R.(4th) 62; [1991] 1 W.W.R. 193; 51 B.C.L.R.(2d) 157; 50 C.R.R. 285; 1990 CarswellBC 255, refd to. [para. 8, footnote 6].

R. v. Debot, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1140; 102 N.R. 161; 37 O.A.C. 1; 52 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 73 C.R.(3d) 129; 45 C.R.R. 49, refd to. [para. 10, footnote 7].

R. v. Caslake (T.L.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 51; 221 N.R. 281; 123 Man.R.(2d) 208; 159 W.A.C. 208; 121 C.C.C.(3d) 97; [1999] 4 W.W.R. 303; 1998 CarswellMan 1; 13 C.R.(5th) 1; 48 C.R.R.(2d) 189, refd to. [para. 11, footnote 8].

R. v. Godoy (V.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 311; 235 N.R. 134; 117 O.A.C. 127; 131 C.C.C.(3d) 129; 1998 CarswellOnt 5223, refd to. [para. 12, footnote 9].

R. v. Mann (P.H.), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 59; 324 N.R. 215; 187 Man.R.(2d) 1; 330 W.A.C. 1; 185 C.C.C.(3d) 308; 21 C.R.(6th) 1; 241 D.L.R.(4th) 214; [2004] 11 W.W.R. 601; 2004 CarswellMan 303; 2004 SCC 52, refd to. [para. 13, footnote 11].

R. v. Pringle (J.D.), [2003] 7 W.W.R. 496; 324 A.R. 352; 35 M.V.R.(4th) 282; 10 C.R.(6th) 53; 15 Alta. L.R.(4th) 131; 48 C.H.R.R. D/111; 2003 CarswellAlta 112; 2003 ABPC 7, refd to. [para. 19, footnote 14].

R. v. Cutforth, [1988] 1 W.W.R. 274; 81 A.R. 213; 61 C.R.(3d) 187; 40 C.C.C.(3d) 253; 55 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193; 12 M.V.R.(2d) 248; 1987 CarswellAlta 219 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20, footnote 15].

R. v. Weaver (T.J.), [2005] A.W.L.D. 1574/1591; 363 A.R. 253; 343 W.A.C. 253; 194 C.C.C.(3d) 350; 27 C.R.(6th) 397; 12 M.V.R.(5th) 177; 127 C.R.R.(2d) 233; 46 Alta. L.R.(4th) 61; 2005 CarswellAlta 290; 2005 ABCA 105, refd to. [para. 20, footnote 16].

R. v. Mills, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 863; 67 N.R. 241; 16 O.A.C. 81; 52 C.R.(3d) 1; 26 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 29 D.L.R.(4th) 161; 21 C.R.R. 76; 58 O.R.(2d) 544; 1986 CarswellOnt 116, refd to. [para. 22, footnote 17].

R. v. Hoy - see R. v. 974649 Ontario Inc. et al.

R. v. 974649 Ontario Inc. et al., [2001] 3 S.C.R. 575; 279 N.R. 345; 154 O.A.C. 345; 159 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 206 D.L.R.(4th) 444; 47 C.R.(5th) 316; 88 C.R.R.(2d) 189; 2001 CarswellOnt 4251; 6 O.R.(3d) 359; 2001 SCC 81, refd to. [para. 22, footnote 18].

R. v. Simpson (D.), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 449; 178 N.R. 145; 127 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 171; 396 A.P.R. 171; 95 C.C.C.(3d) 96; 1995 CarswellNfld 119, refd to. [para. 24, footnote 20].

R. v. Mitchell (W.F.) (1994), 162 A.R. 109; 83 W.A.C. 109; 9 M.V.R.(3d) 314; 35 C.R.(4th) 282; 1994 CarswellAlta 331 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24, footnote 20].

Harrison v. Carswell, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 200; 5 N.R. 523; 75 C.L.L.C. 14,286; 25 C.C.C.(2d) 186; 62 D.L.R.(3d) 68; [1975] 6 W.W.R. 673; 1975 CarswellMan 58, refd to. [para. 32, footnote 21].

R. v. Regan (G.A.), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 297; 282 N.R. 1; 201 N.S.R.(2d) 63; 629 A.P.R. 63; 161 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 49 C.R.(5th) 1; 209 D.L.R.(4th) 41; 91 C.R.R.(2d) 51; 2002 CarswellNS 61; 2002 SCC 12, refd to. [para. 37, footnote 22].

R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276; 56 C.R.(3d) 193; [1987] 3 W.W.R. 699; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 508; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 28 C.R.R. 122; 13 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1; 1987 CarswellBC 94, refd to. [para. 44, footnote 24].

R. v. Harrer (H.M.), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 562; 186 N.R. 329; 64 B.C.A.C. 161; 105 W.A.C. 161; 128 D.L.R.(4th) 98; 101 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 42 C.R.(4th) 269; 32 C.R.R.(2d) 273; 1995 CarswellBC 1098, refd to. [para. 46, footnote 25].

R. v. Sheppard (C.), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 869; 284 N.R. 342; 211 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 50; 633 A.P.R. 50; 162 C.C.C.(3d) 298; 210 D.L.R.(4th) 608; 50 C.R.(5th) 68; 2002 CarswellNfld 74; 2002 SCC 26, refd to. [para. 49, footnote 26].

R. v. Glykis (E.) and Mangal (A.) (1995), 84 O.A.C. 140; 41 C.R.(4th) 310; 100 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 24 O.R.(3d) 803; 31 C.R.R.(2d) 85; 1995 CarswellOnt 128 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 58, footnote 29].

R. v. Pigeon (C.) (1992), 14 B.C.A.C. 139; 26 W.A.C. 139; 73 C.C.C.(3d) 337; 1992 CarswellBC 1149 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 59, footnote 30].

R. v. MacPherson (N.H.) (1995), 166 N.B.R.(2d) 81; 425 A.P.R. 81; 100 C.C.C.(3d) 216; 1995 CarswellNB 15 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 59, footnote 30].

R. v. Carpenter (J.D.) (2002), 168 B.C.A.C. 137; 275 W.A.C. 137; 165 C.C.C.(3d) 159; 4 C.R.(4th) 115; 95 C.R.R.(2d) 158; 2002 CarswellBC 1057; 2002 BCCA 301, leave to appeal refused (2003), 307 N.R. 194; 187 B.C.A.C. 320; 307 W.A.C. 320; 101 C.R.R.(2d) 372; 2002 CarswellBC 3156 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 59, footnote 31].

R. v. Raponi (W.), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 35; 323 N.R. 373; 354 A.R. 292; 329 W.A.C. 292; 185 C.C.C.(3d) 338; 241 D.L.R.(4th) 243; 21 C.R.(6th) 197; 28 Alta. L.R.(4th) 201; [2004] 9 W.W.R. 205; 2004 CarswellAlta 943; [2004] A.W.L.D. 420; 2004 SCC 50, refd to. [para. 60, footnote 32].

Martel v. Andrew et al. - see Martel v. Spitz et al.

Martel v. Spitz et al., [2005] A.R. Uned. 22; [2005] 6 W.W.R. 623; 40 Alta. L.R.(4th) 199; 2005 CarswellAlta 217; [2005] A.W.L.D. 1274; 2005 ABCA 63, leave to appeal refused (2005), 346 N.R. 196; 391 A.R. 398; 377 W.A.C. 398; 2005 CarswellAlta 1131 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 61, footnote 33].

R. v. Zelensky, Eaton (T.) Co. and Canada (Attorney General) et al., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 940; 21 N.R. 372; 2 C.R.(3d) 107; 41 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 86 D.L.R.(3d) 179; [1978] 3 W.W.R. 693, refd to. [para. 62, footnote 34].

Wilbur v. Miller et al. - see Wilbur v. Foothills Hospital et al.

Wilbur v. Foothills Hospital et al., [2005] A.W.L.D. 2428; 367 A.R. 191; 346 W.A.C. 191; 256 D.L.R.(4th) 171; 15 C.P.C.(6th) 228; 2005 CarswellAlta 847; 2005 ABCA 220, refd to. [para. 63, footnote 35].

Board v. Board, [1919] A.C. 956; [1919] 2 W.W.R. 940; 121 L.T. 620; 35 T.L.R. 635; 48 D.L.R. 13 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 66, footnote 36].

Okwuobi v.Quebec (Attorney General), [2005] 2 S.C.R. 257; 331 N.R. 300; 250 D.L.R.(4th) 454; 27 Admin. L.R.(4th) 1; 129 C.R.R.(2d) 320; 2005 CarswellQue 766; REJB 2005-87405; J.E. 2005-630; 2005 SCC 16, refd to. [para. 67, footnote 37].

Odhavji Estate et al. v. Woodhouse et al., [2003] 3 S.C.R. 263; 312 N.R. 305; 180 O.A.C. 201; 19 C.C.L.T.(3d) 163; 233 D.L.R.(4th) 193; 11 Admin. L.R.(4th) 45; 70 O.R.(3d) 253; 2003 CarswellOnt 4851; 2003 SCC 69, refd to. [para. 67, footnote 38].

Doucet-Boudreau et al. v. Nova Scotia (Minister of Education) et al., [2003] 3 S.C.R. 3; 312 N.R. 1; 218 N.S.R.(2d) 311; 687 A.P.R. 311; 232 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 45 C.P.C.(5th) 1; 112 C.R.R.(2d) 202; 2003 CarswellNS 375; 2003 SCC 62, refd to. [para. 67, footnote 38].

R. v. Flintoff (P.) (1998), 111 O.A.C. 305; 16 C.R.(5th) 248; 126 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 36 M.V.R.(3d) 1; 1998 CarswellOnt 2373 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 69, footnote 39].

R. v. Fice (L.), [2005] 1 S.C.R. 742; 333 N.R. 243; 198 O.A.C. 146; 196 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 28 C.R.(6th) 201; 252 D.L.R.(4th) 575; 2005 CarswellOnt 1983; REJB 2005-90620; J.E. 2005-985; 2005 SCC 32, refd to. [para. 74, footnote 41].

R. v. Hamilton (M.A.) and Mason (D.R.) (2004), 189 O.A.C. 90; 186 C.C.C.(3d) 129; 241 D.L.R.(4th) 490; 22 C.R.(6th) 1; 72 O.R.(3d) 1; 2004 CarswellOnt 3214 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 74, footnote 41].

Counsel:

Harold Brubaker (Engel Law Office), for the appellant;

Tamara Friesen, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on December 1, 2005, before Watson, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, whose following oral decision on the same date was filed in writing on January 23, 2006.