R. v. Sapara (J.), 2002 ABQB 243

• Judge: Watson, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: March 01, 2002
• Citations: 2002 ABQB 243;(2002), 311 A.R. 201 (QB)

R. v. Sapara (J.) (2002), 311 A.R. 201 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2002] A.R. TBEd. MR.014

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. James Sapara (applicant)

(Action No. 981630915Q2; 2002 ABQB 243)

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

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Watson, J.

March 1, 2002.

Summary:

Sapara and Morin were charged with secret commissions offences contrary to s. 426(1) of the Criminal Code. Sapara applied for a stay of proceedings, claiming that his s. 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time was denied.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at 263 A.R. 101, allowed the application and stayed the proceedings. The Crown appealed.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at 277 A.R. 357; 242 W.A.C. 357, allowed the appeal, set aside the stay and directed that the trial proceed on an expedited basis. Sapara again applied for a stay of proceedings, claiming that his s. 11(b) Charter right was denied.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application.

Civil Rights - Topic 3264

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Speedy trial - Accused's right to - Denial of right - The accused was charged on December 22, 1997 - In April 2000, the trial judge stayed criminal proceedings against him, holding that 34 months' delay denied the accused's s. 11(b) Charter right - On March 5, 2001, the Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal, holding that the accused had waived six months of the delay and another 20 months had been "neutral or inherent" delay - The court quashed the stay and directed that the trial proceed - The trial was scheduled for February 2002, 50 months after the charges were laid - The accused again sought a stay, claiming a denial of s. 11(b) - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench denied the stay - The appeal period (11 months) did not count in determining the delay - The court was bound by the Court of Appeal's determinations with respect to the pre-appeal delay -Three to four months' post-appeal delay caused by scheduling complications for counsel did not count against the Crown - Further, there was insufficient prejudice.

Civil Rights - Topic 3265

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Speedy trial - Accused's right to - What constitutes "within a reasonable time" - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the objectives of the s. 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time included giving weight to the collective interest in ensuring that offenders were tried and dealt with according to law - "The word 'reasonable' connotes a contextual analysis. As such, relevant contextual factors should be considered in deciding what is 'reasonable'. Such factors can include the implications for the case in question of the larger societal interest mentioned above. In that sense, the Court would not be oblivious to the nature of the charges against a particular offender, not only in the sense of how complex such a prosecution might be and how much time the trial might take, but also in the sense of the greater public interest. ... This is not to say that, automatically, the more serious the offence, the easier the Crown will be able to justify delay. It is important to try serious charges promptly not only for the forensic (evidentiary) concerns ..., but also to ensure that persons who ought to be acquitted of such serious charges are released from the stigma of such accusations as soon as practicable." - See paragraphs 76 to 78.

Civil Rights - Topic 3265

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Speedy trial - Accused's right to - What constitutes "within a reasonable time" - A trial judge stayed criminal proceedings against Sapara, holding that his s. 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time was denied -The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal, set aside the stay and directed that the trial proceed - The accused again sought a stay, claiming a denial of s. 11(b) - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the appeal period was to be deducted from the determination of the delay because the accused was not charged during that time - However, the pre-appeal time counted under s. 11(b) - See paragraphs 86 to 93.

Civil Rights - Topic 3265

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Speedy trial - Accused's right to - What constitutes "within a reasonable time" - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3264 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 3270

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Speedy trial - Accused's right to - Evidence of prejudice and causes of delay - The accused and Morin were charged with secret commissions offences - Morin's difficulty in obtaining counsel caused a 12 month delay - The trial judge held that the accused's s. 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time was denied - The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding, inter alia, that the 12 month delay was a "neutral factor" - The court set aside the stay and directed that the trial proceed - The accused again sought a stay, claiming a denial of s. 11(b) - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held, inter alia, that the failure of the Crown to divide the case as between the accused and Morin earlier on in the proceeding did not make the delay unreasonable - Further, the court was bound by the Court of Appeal's decision - See paragraphs 114 to 124.

Civil Rights - Topic 3270

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Speedy trial - Accused's right to - Evidence of prejudice and causes of delay - An accused's trial was delayed because, inter alia, conflicts in counsel's schedules did not permit an earlier trial date given the expected length of the accused's trial - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench characterized this delay as inherent delay - Alternatively, it could have been characterized as partly institutional delay, partly counsel unavailability and partly inherent - See paragraphs 129 to 131.

Civil Rights - Topic 3270.02

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Speedy trial - Accused's right to - Delay between trials - Appellate delay - An accused applied to stay criminal proceedings, claiming that his s. 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time was denied - The trial judge allowed the application - The Crown appealed - The Court of Appeal dismissed the accused's application to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution - The court allowed the Crown's appeal, set aside the stay and directed that the trial proceed - The accused again sought a stay, claiming a denial of s. 11(b) - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated, inter alia, that it lacked jurisdiction to find that there was appellate delay such as to engage s. 7 of the Charter - Further, the issue was res judicata because of the dismissal of the want of prosecution application - See paragraphs 94 to 96.

Civil Rights - Topic 3270.02

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Speedy trial - Accused's right to - Delay between trials (incl. appellate delay) - [See Civil Rights -Topic 3264 and second Civil Rights - Topic 3265 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4989.2

Appeals - Indictable offences - Powers of Court of Appeal - Power to limit scope of new trial - A trial judge stayed proceedings against an accused, holding that 34 months' delay denied his s. 11(b) Charter right - The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal - The court held, inter alia, that the accused had waived six months of the delay - The court set aside the stay and directed that the trial proceed - The accused again sought a stay, claiming a denial of s. 11(b) - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the Court of Appeal's decision foreclosed reconsideration of the six month period at the new trial - The Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to dispose of the issue raised by the appeal and remit the matter for trial without allowing a re-hearing of the issue - Further, the Court of Appeal made a decision of law that was binding on the Court of Queen's Bench - Also, the Court of Appeal's supervisory role in relation to the efficacy of s. 11(b) within a province would be undermined if trial judges could disagree when the case was remitted to them - See paragraphs 99 to 113.

Estoppel - Topic 386

Estoppel by record (res judicata) - Res judicata as a bar to subsequent proceedings - Issues decided in prior proceedings - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 3270.02 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Morin, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 771; 134 N.R. 321; 53 O.A.C. 241; 12 C.R.(4th) 1; 71 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 8 C.R.R.(2d) 193, affing. (1990), 38 O.A.C. 298; 76 C.R.(3d) 37; 55 C.C.C.(3d) 209 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 51, footnote 6].

R. v. Koruz et al., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 1134; 150 N.R. 303; 135 A.R. 335; 33 W.A.C. 335; 79 C.C.C.(3d) 574, affing. (1992), 125 A.R. 161; 14 W.A.C. 161; 72 C.C.C.(3d) 353 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 57, footnote 7].

R. v. Askov, Hussey, Melo and Gugliotta, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1199; 113 N.R. 241; 42 O.A.C. 81; 79 C.R.(3d) 273; 49 C.R.R. 1; 59 C.C.C.(3d) 449; 74 D.L.R.(4th) 355; 75 O.R.(2d) 673, reving. (1987), 22 O.A.C. 299; 60 C.R.(3d) 277; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 33 C.R.R. 319 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 73, footnote 10].

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; 73 C.R.(3d) 1; 45 C.R.R. 314; 8 W.C.B.(2d) 801, reving. (1988), 54 Man.R.(2d) 24; 42 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 73, footnote 11].

R. v. Hinchey (M.F.) and Hinchey (B.A.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1128; 205 N.R. 161; 147 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1; 459 A.P.R. 1; 111 C.C.C.(3d) 353; 3 C.R.(5th) 187; 142 D.L.R.(4th) 50, reving. (1994), 123 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 222; 382 A.P.R. 222 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 78, footnote 13].

R. v. Satkunananthan (S.) et al. (2001), 143 O.A.C. 1; 152 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 42 C.R.(5th) 220; 81 C.R.R.(2d) 285 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 81, footnote 14].

R. v. W.B. (2000), 133 O.A.C. 3; 145 C.C.C.(3d) 498; 34 C.R.(5th) 263; 76 C.R.R.(2d) 189 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 81, footnote 15].

R. v. Potvin (R.), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 880; 155 N.R. 241; 66 O.A.C. 81; 83 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 105 D.L.R.(4th) 214; 23 C.R.(4th) 10; 16 C.R.R.(2d) 260, refd to. [para. 87, footnote 17].

R. v. Jack (B.G.), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 334; 214 N.R. 294; 118 Man.R.(2d) 168; 149 W.A.C. 168; 117 C.C.C.(3d) 43, reving. [1997] 2 W.W.R. 1; 113 Man.R.(2d) 84; 131 W.A.C. 84 (C.A.), supplementary reasons (1997), 113 Man.R.(2d) 260; 131 W.A.C. 260 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 89, footnote 19].

R. v. Keyowski, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 657; 83 N.R. 296; 65 Sask.R. 122; 40 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 62 C.R.(3d) 349; 32 C.R.R. 269; [1988] 4 W.W.R. 97; 4 W.C.B.(2d) 129, affing. [1986] 5 W.W.R. 150; 49 Sask.R. 64 (C.A.), reving. [1986] 4 W.W.R. 140; 48 Sask.R. 4 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 89, footnote 20].

Blencoe v. Human Rights Commission (B.C.) et al., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 307; 260 N.R. 1; 141 B.C.A.C. 161; 231 W.A.C. 161; 190 D.L.R.(4th) 513; [2000] 10 W.W.R. 567; 81 B.C.L.R.(3d) 1; 77 C.R.R.(2d) 189; 23 Admin. L.R.(3d) 175; 2000 C.L.L.C. 230-040; 3 C.C.E.L.(3d) 165, reving. (1998), 107 B.C.A.C. 162; 174 W.A.C. 162; 160 D.L.R.(4th) 303 (C.A.), reving. [1999] 1 W.W.R. 139 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 89, footnote 21].

Reference Re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266; 48 C.R.(3d) 289; [1986] 1 W.W.R. 481; 69 B.C.L.R. 145; 36 M.V.R. 240; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 24 D.L.R.(4th) 536; 18 C.R.R. 30, refd to. [para. 89, footnote 22].

R. v. Gallant (C.A.), [1998] 3 S.C.R. 80; 231 N.R. 190; 168 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 126; 517 A.P.R. 126; 19 C.R.(5th) 302; 128 C.C.C.(3d) 509, reving. [1997] Nfld. & P.E.I.R. Uned. 3 (P.E.I.C.A.), refd to. [para. 91, footnote 23].

R. v. MacDougall (P.A.), [1998] 3 S.C.R. 45; 231 N.R. 147; 168 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 83; 517 A.P.R. 83; 19 C.R.(5th) 275; 128 C.C.C.(3d) 483, reving. (1997), 147 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 193; 459 A.P.R. 193; 6 C.R.(5th) 228 (P.E.I.C.A.), refd to. [para. 91, footnote 23].

R. v. Rahey, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 588; 75 N.R. 81; 78 N.S.R.(2d) 183; 193 A.P.R. 183; 57 C.R.(3d) 289; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 39 D.L.R.(4th) 481; 33 C.R.R. 275, reving. (1984), 63 N.S.R.(2d) 275; 141 A.P.R. 275; 13 C.C.C.(3d) 297; 11 C.R.R. 272 (C.A.), reving. (1983), 61 N.S.R.(2d) 385; 133 A.P.R. 385; 9 C.C.C.(3d) 385 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 95, footnote 25].

R. v. Tammie (A.B.), [2001] B.C.T.C. 1219 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 96, footnote 26].

R. v. Duhamel, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 555; 57 N.R. 162; 57 A.R. 204; 15 C.C.C.(3d) 491; [1985] 2 W.W.R. 251; 14 D.L.R.(4th) 92; 43 C.R.(3d) 1; 35 Alta. L.R.(2d) 1, affing. [1982] 1 W.W.R. 127; 33 A.R. 271; 131 D.L.R.(3d) 352; 64 C.C.C.(2d) 538; 25 C.R.(3d) 53; 17 Alta. L.R.(2d) 127 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 100, footnote 27].

R. v. Adams (J.R.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 707; 190 N.R. 161; 178 A.R. 161; 110 W.A.C. 161; 103 C.C.C.(3d) 262; 44 C.R.(4th) 195; 131 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 100, footnote 28].

Minister of National Revenue v. Schwartz, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 254; 193 N.R. 241; 17 C.C.E.L.(2d) 141; 96 D.T.C. 6103; 10 C.C.P.B. 213; [1996] 1 C.T.C. 303; 133 D.L.R.(4th) 289, refd to. [para. 102, footnote 29].

R. v. Chaplin (D.A.) et al., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 727; 178 N.R. 118; 162 A.R. 272; 83 W.A.C. 272; 36 C.R.(4th) 201; 27 Alta. L.R.(3d) 1; 96 C.C.C.(3d) 225; 26 C.R.R.(2d) 189, affing. (1993), 145 A.R. 153; 55 W.A.C. 153 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 103, footnote 30].

R. v. Thomas (A.F.), [1998] 3 S.C.R. 535; 233 N.R. 266; 115 B.C.A.C. 161; 189 W.A.C. 161; 21 C.R.(5th) 42; [1999] 5 W.W.R. 380, reving. (1997), 85 B.C.A.C. 303; 138 W.A.C. 303 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 104, footnote 31].

R. v. Warsing (K.L.), [1998] 3 S.C.R. 579; 233 N.R. 319; 115 B.C.A.C. 214; 189 W.A.C. 214; 21 C.R.(5th) 75, affing. (1997), 97 B.C.A.C. 137; 157 W.A.C. 137; 119 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 11 C.R.(5th) 383 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 104, footnote 32].

R. v. Pearson (E.), [1998] 3 S.C.R. 620; 233 N.R. 367; 21 C.R.(5th) 106; 130 C.C.C.(3d) 293, refd to. [para. 104, footnote 33].

R. v. McClure (D.E.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 445; 266 N.R. 275; 142 O.A.C. 201; 195 D.L.R.(4th) 513; 151 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 40 C.R.(5th) 1, refd to. [para. 105, footnote 34].

R. v. Skalbania (N.M.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 995; 220 N.R. 349; 99 B.C.A.C. 81; 162 W.A.C. 81; 120 C.C.C.(3d) 217; 11 C.R.(5th) 292, affing. (1996), 80 B.C.A.C. 56; 130 W.A.C. 56; 109 C.C.C.(3d) 515 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 109, footnote 35].

R. v. Dwernychuk (M.K.) (1992), 135 A.R. 31; 33 W.A.C. 31; 42 M.V.R.(2d) 237; 77 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 12 C.R.R.(2d) 175 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied [1993] 2 S.C.R. vii; 151 N.R. 400; 141 A.R. 317; 46 W.A.C. 317; 79 C.C.C.(3d) vi; 14 C.R.R.(2d) 192, refd to. [para. 110, footnote 36].

R. v. Dutra (A.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 759; 269 N.R. 379; 151 B.C.A.C. 270; 249 W.A.C. 270; 155 C.C.C.(3d) 270, affing. (2000), 137 B.C.A.C. 104; 223 W.A.C. 104; 34 C.R.(5th) 162; 155 C.C.C.(3d) 272 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 111, footnote 37].

R. v. Brown (R.) (1996), 16 O.T.C. 150 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 112, footnote 38].

R. v. Loewen (J.K.), [1999] 4 W.W.R. 429; 131 Man.R.(2d) 217; 187 W.A.C. 217 (C.A.), affing. (1998), 128 Man.R.(2d) 184 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 117, footnote 39].

R. v. Litchfield, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 333; 161 N.R. 161; 145 A.R. 321; 55 W.A.C. 321; 25 C.R.(4th) 137; 86 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 14 Alta. L.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 118, footnote 40].

R. v. Creighton (D.J.) and Crawford (C.), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 858; 179 N.R. 161; 81 O.A.C. 359; 96 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 37 C.R.(4th) 197, reving. (1993), 62 O.A.C. 91; 13 O.R.(3d) 130; 80 C.C.C.(3d) 421; 20 C.R.(4th) 331; 14 C.R.R.(2d) 93 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 118, footnote 41].

R. v. Cocker (I.) (1997), 89 B.C.A.C. 276; 145 W.A.C. 276 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied (1997), 224 N.R. 396; 100 B.C.A.C. 160; 163 W.A.C. 160 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 119, footnote 42].

R. v. Heaslip, McGale, Stillwell and Tartaglia (1983), 1 O.A.C. 81; 9 C.C.C.(3d) 480; 36 C.R.(3d) 309; 7 C.R.R. 257 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 119, footnote 43].

R. v. Callocchia (T.) and D'Angelo (G.) (2000), 149 C.C.C.(3d) 215 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 120, footnote 44].

R. v. Cook (D.W.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 1113; 210 N.R. 197; 188 N.B.R.(2d) 161; 480 A.P.R. 161; 114 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 7 C.R.(5th) 51, reving. (1996), 178 N.B.R.(2d) 38; 454 A.P.R. 38; 107 C.C.C.(3d) 334; 49 C.R.(4th) 17 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 121, footnote 45].

R. v. Allen (H.D.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 700; 220 N.R. 67; 104 O.A.C. 237; 119 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 11 C.R.(5th) 296, affing. (1996), 92 O.A.C. 345; 110 C.C.C.(3d) 331 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 123, footnote 46].

R. v. Collins (M.E.), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1104; 183 N.R. 285; 82 O.A.C. 365; 99 C.C.C.(3d) 385, refd to. [para. 125, footnote 47].

R. v. Heikel and Sutton (1992), 125 A.R. 298; 14 W.A.C. 298 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 130, footnote 49].

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, affing. (1983), 7 C.C.C.(3d) 573; 6 C.R.R. 88; 2 D.L.R.(4th) 576; 43 O.R.(2d) 631 (C.A.), affing. (1983), 2 C.C.C.(3d) 444; 3 C.R.R. 63; 144 D.L.R.(3d) 422; 40 O.R.(2d) 112 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 138, footnote 50].

R. v. Delaronde (J.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 213; 208 N.R. 72; 4 C.R.(5th) 274; 115 C.C.C.(3d) 370, addendum [1997] 1 S.C.R. 214; 208 N.R. 73; 4 C.R.(5th) 276; 115 C.C.C.(3d) 370, affing. [1996] R.J.Q. 591; 115 C.C.C.(3d) 355 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 146, footnote 51].

R. v. Power (E.), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 601; 165 N.R. 241; 117 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 269; 365 A.P.R. 269; 89 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 2 M.V.R.(3d) 161, refd to. [para. 149, footnote 52].

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Tobiass et al., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 391; 218 N.R. 81; 118 C.C.C.(3d) 443; 10 C.R.(5th) 163; 151 D.L.R.(4th) 119; 1 Admin. L.R.(3d) 1; 14 C.P.C.(4th) 1; 40 Imm. L.R.(2d) 23, affing. [1997] 1 F.C. 828; 208 N.R. 21; 142 D.L.R.(4th) 270 (F.C.A.), reving. [1996] 2 F.C. 729; 116 F.T.R. 69; 41 Admin. L.R.(2d) 272 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 149, footnote 53].

R. v. Regan (G.A.) (2002), 282 N.R. 1; 201 N.S.R.(2d) 63; 629 A.P.R. 63 (S.C.C.), affing. (1999), 179 N.S.R.(2d) 45; 553 A.P.R. 45; 137 C.C.C.(3d) 449; 28 C.R.(5th) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 149, footnote 54].

Counsel:

Sheila Brown (Alberta Department of Justice - Special Prosecutions Branch), for the respondent;

Robert H. Davidson, Q.C. (Davidson Gregory), for the applicant.

This application was heard on February 25 to 27, 2002, by Watson, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment orally on March 1, 2002, and released written reasons on March 4, 2002.