R. v. Seeglitz (J.W.), (2008) 339 N.B.R.(2d) 163 (PC)

• Judge: Brien, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of New Brunswick (Canada)
• Case Date: October 02, 2008
• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Citations: (2008), 339 N.B.R.(2d) 163 (PC);2008 NBPC 50

R. v. Seeglitz (J.W.) (2008), 339 N.B.R.(2d) 163 (PC);

    339 R.N.-B.(2e) 163; 870 A.P.R. 163

MLB headnote and full text

Sommaire et texte intégral

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Temp. Cite: [2008] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. NO.004

Renvoi temp.: [2008] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. NO.004

R. v. James William Seeglitz

(2008 NBPC 50; 2008 NBCP 50)

Indexed As: R. v. Seeglitz (J.W.)

Répertorié: R. v. Seeglitz (J.W.)

New Brunswick Provincial Court

Brien, P.C.J.

October 29, 2008.

Summary:

Résumé:

On September 19, 2005, the accused was charged with dangerous driving causing bodily harm and assault with a weapon, namely a vehicle. On April 30, 2008, the accused moved for a stay of proceedings on the ground that his right under s. 11(b) of the Charter, to be tried within a reasonable period of time, was infringed.

The New Brunswick Provincial Court allowed the motion.

Civil Rights - Topic 3264

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Speedy trial - Accused's right to - Denial of right - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3265 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 3265

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Speedy trial - Accused's right to - What constitutes "within a reasonable time" - On September 19, 2005, the accused was charged with dangerous driving causing bodily harm and assault with a weapon, namely a vehicle - He elected trial by judge and jury - On December 1, 2006, a preliminary inquiry was held - On January 2, 2007, the accused ordered a transcript - On January 12, 2007, the accused re-elected trial before a Provincial Court judge - Trial was set for September 6-7, 2007 - On July 23, 2007, the accused's counsel wrote Crown counsel that the transcript had not yet arrived - On September 5, 2007, the accused's counsel inquired about the transcript - On September 6, 2007, absent a transcript, the trial was adjourned first to September 27, 2007, and then, absent a transcript again, to October 24, 2007 - On October 20, 2007, the 37-page transcript arrived - On October 24, 2007, the matter was again adjourned to enable counsel to enter into discussions, and then, on December 19, 2007, the court set trial for May 9, 2008 - On April 30, 2008, the accused moved for a stay of proceedings on the ground that his right under s. 11(b) of the Charter, to be tried within a reasonable period of time, was infringed - The New Brunswick Provincial Court allowed the motion - The delays in getting the transcript and then getting the matter to trial were unreasonable - There was "significant" prejudice to the accused and detriment to the administration of justice which appeared irreparable by any other remedy - The Crown had to share responsibility for failure to expedite the completion of the transcript - See paragraphs 1 to 88.

Civil Rights - Topic 8374

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Stay of proceedings - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3265 ].

Droits et libertés - Cote 3264

Procès - Application régulière de la loi, justice fondamentale et audiences équitables - Droit de l'accusé d'être jugé sans délai - Négation du droit - [Voir Civil Rights - Topic 3264 ].

Droits et libertés - Cote 3265

Procès - Application régulière de la loi, justice fondamentale et audiences équitables - Droit de l'accusé d'être jugé sans délai - Sens de l'expression « dans un délai raisonnable » - [Voir Civil Rights - Topic 3265 ].

Droits et libertés - Cote 8374

Charte canadienne des droits et libertés - Négation de droits - Recours - Arrêt des procédures - [Voir Civil Rights - Topic 8374 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Smith (M.H.), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1120; 102 N.R. 205; 63 Man.R.(2d) 81, consd. [para. 17].

R. v. Askov, Hussey, Melo and Gugliotta, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1199; 113 N.R. 241; 42 O.A.C. 81, consd. [para. 17].

R. v. Morin, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 771; 134 N.R. 321; 53 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Brassard (S.), [1993] 4 S.C.R. 287; 160 N.R. 247; 58 Q.A.C. 261, consd. [para. 17].

R. v. Rogalsky (E.J.) et al. (1994), 125 Sask.R. 271; 81 W.A.C. 271; 95 C.C.C.(3d) 41 (C.A.), affd. [1995] 4 S.C.R. 48; 189 N.R. 82; 137 Sask.R. 230; 107 W.A.C. 230, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Firth (G.) (1992), 126 N.B.R.(2d) 47; 317 A.P.R. 47 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Barkman (T.K.) (2004), 190 Man.R.(2d) 75; 335 W.A.C. 75; 2004 MBCA 151, consd. [para. 24].

R. v. Augustine (R.C.) (1992), 123 N.B.R.(2d) 22; 310 A.P.R. 22; 70 C.C.C.(3d) 318 (C.A.), consd. [para. 30].

R. v. Stewart (D.R.) (1987), 83 N.B.R.(2d) 204; 212 A.P.R. 204 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Karst, [1991] N.W.T.J. No. 3, refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Maillet (M.J.) (1997), 190 N.B.R.(2d) 216; 484 A.P.R. 216 (C.A.), dist. [para. 45].

R. v. Duncan, [2007] B.C.J. No. 971 (Prov. Ct.), consd. [para. 48].

R. v. Knights, [1996] B.C.J. No. 2870 (S.C.), consd. [para. 48].

R. v. Bailey (F.P.) et al., [1991] B.C.T.C. Uned. 254 (S.C.), consd. [para. 48].

R. v. Jack (J.) (2002), 212 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 224; 637 A.P.R. 224 (N.L.C.A.), consd. [para. 51].

R. v. Coughlan (J.) (1987), 81 N.B.R.(2d) 199; 205 A.P.R. 199 (C.A.), dist. [para. 59].

R. v. Mills (1986), 67 N.R. 241; 16 O.A.C. 81; 52 C.R.(3d) 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 61].

R. v. Stewart (B.C.) (2000), 139 B.C.A.C. 213; 227 W.A.C. 213; 2000 BCCA 399, consd. [para. 63].

R. v. Harris (W.C.) (1989), 74 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 43; 231 A.P.R. 43 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [para. 68].

R. v. Clarke (1987), 61 Sask.R. 197 (C.A.), consd. [para. 72].

R. v. Stensrud and Smith (G.W.) (1988), 67 Sask.R. 269; 42 C.C.C.(3d) 569 (C.A.), affd. (1989), 103 N.R. 191; 81 Sask.R. 293; 52 C.C.C.(3d) 96 (S.C.C.), consd. [para. 73].

R. v. Richard (1987), 81 N.B.R.(2d) 137; 205 A.P.R. 137 (T.D.), consd. [para. 74].

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, consd. [para. 86].

Counsel:

Avocats:

Michel O. LeBlanc, for the Crown;

Eugene J. Mockler, Q.C., for the accused.

This motion was heard on October 2, 2008, by Brien, P.C.J., of the New Brunswick Provincial Court, who delivered the following decision on October 29, 2008.