R. v. Shrubsall (W.C.), (2001) 200 N.S.R.(2d) 42 (SC)

• Judge: Cacchione, J.
• Court: Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: May 11, 2001
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: (2001), 200 N.S.R.(2d) 42 (SC);2001 NSSC 198

R. v. Shrubsall (W.C.) (2001), 200 N.S.R.(2d) 42 (SC);

 627 A.P.R. 42

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2002] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. FE.003

Her Majesty The Queen v. William Chandler Shrubsall

(CR 162262, 162264; 2001 NSSC 198)

Indexed As: R. v. Shrubsall (W.C.)

Nova Scotia Supreme Court

Cacchione, J.

May 23, 2001.

Summary:

Following separate jury trials, the accused was convicted of two counts of robbery, aggravated sexual assault, aggravated assault endangering life and possession of a weapon for the purpose of committing a robbery. At the conclusion of both trials, the Crown gave notice under s. 753(2) of the Criminal Code of its intention to have the accused declared to be a dangerous offender. At issue was the admissibility at the dangerous offender hearing of evidence of (1) alleged criminal conduct in the United States for which the accused was never charged or the charges were either disposed of by alternative dispute resolution processes or barred by limitation periods and (2) the circumstances surround­ing prosecutions in Canada that were with­drawn or stayed prior to trial. The accused alleged that it was an abuse of process to admit such evidence.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court held that the evidence was admissible. The dangerous offender hearing was a sentencing hearing where the accused's past conduct was rele­vant. However, offences not prosecuted had to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. There was no abuse of process in admitting admissible evidence.

Criminal Law - Topic 253

General principles - Abuse of process - What constitutes - [See Criminal Law - Topic 6512 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 6512

Dangerous or long-term offenders - Deten­tion - General - Evidence - The Crown gave notice to an accused under s. 753(2) of the Criminal Code of its intention to have him declared to be a dangerous offender - At issue was the admissibility at the dangerous offender hearing of evidence of (1) alleged criminal conduct in the United States for which the accused was never charged or the charges were either disposed of by alternative dispute resolu­tion processes or barred by limitation periods and (2) the circumstances sur­rounding prosecutions in Canada that were withdrawn or stayed prior to trial - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court held that all of the evidence was admissible - The dan­gerous offender hearing was a sentencing hearing where the accused's past conduct was relevant - It was the misconduct itself that was relevant, not whether the conduct resulted in criminal charges - However, offences not prosecuted had to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Lyons (1987), 80 N.R. 161; 82 N.S.R.(2d) 271; 207 A.P.R. 271; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Carleton (1982), 32 A.R. 81; 69 C.C.C.(2d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Wilband, [1967] 2 C.C.C. 6 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Jones (S.) (1994), 166 N.R. 321; 43 B.C.A.C. 241; 69 W.A.C. 241; 89 C.C.C.(3d) 353 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Small (K.R.) (2000), 141 B.C.A.C. 126; 231 W.A.C. 126 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Cooper (M.) (1999), 24 B.C.T.C. 81; 69 C.R.R.(2d) 75 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Sharrow (C.L.) (1999), 117 O.A.C. 267; 133 C.C.C.(3d) 367 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Lewis (1984), 4 O.A.C. 98; 12 C.C.C.(3d) 353 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Corbiere (H.E.) (1995), 80 O.A.C. 222 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Gregoire (R.J.) (1998), 129 Man.R.(2d) 161; 180 W.A.C. 161; 130 C.C.C.(3d) 65 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Riddle (1979), 29 N.R. 91; 18 A.R. 525; 48 C.C.C.(2d) 365 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Petersen (1983), 42 N.R. 92; 18 Sask.R. 162; 69 C.C.C.(3d) 385 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Frank (D.R.) (1998), 127 Man.R.(2d) 68 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Selhi (1985), 38 Sask.R. 90; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 131 (C.A.), affd. (1990), 110 N.R. 318; 86 Sask.R. 253; 53 C.C.C.(3d) 576 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Boutilier (R.E.) (1995), 147 N.S.R.(2d) 200; 426 A.P.R. 200; 104 C.C.C.(3d) 327 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Faber (1987), 38 C.C.C.(3d) 49 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Osiowy (1989), 80 Sask.R. 14; 50 C.C.C.(3d) 189 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Campbell (J.) and Shirose (S.) (1999), 237 N.R. 86; 119 O.A.C. 201; 133 C.C.C.(3d) 257 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Jewitt, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 128; 61 N.R. 159, refd to. [para. 37].

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, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Cook (D.W.) (1997), 210 N.R. 197; 188 N.B.R.(2d) 161; 480 A.P.R. 161; 114 C.C.C.(3d) 481 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. O'Connor (H.P.) (1995), 191 N.R. 1; 68 B.C.A.C. 1; 112 W.A.C. 1; 103 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Jolivet (D.) (2000), 254 N.R. 1; 144 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 40].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Steusser, Lee, Abuse of Process: The Need to Reconsider 29 C.R.(4th) 92, generally [para. 35].

Counsel:

Paul Carver and Robert Fetterly, for the Crown;

Lonny Queripel and Cecil Woon, for the accused.

This application was heard between February 26 and May 11, 2001, at Halifax, N.S., before Cacchione, J., of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, who delivered the following judgment on May 23, 2001.