R. v. Sidor, (1982) 39 A.R. 541 (QB)

• Judge: Wachowich, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: January 01, 1982
• Citations: (1982), 39 A.R. 541 (QB)

R. v. Sidor (1982), 39 A.R. 541 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Sidor

(No. 8110 0116A)

Indexed As: R. v. Sidor

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Red Deer

Wachowich, J.

August 1982

Summary:

The accused appealed his conviction on a charge of impaired driving, contrary to s. 236 of the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34. The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.

Civil Rights - Topic 3133

Due process and fair hearings - Criminal proceedings - Right of accused to make full answer and defence - An accused charged with impaired driving appeared at his trial without counsel and requested an adjournment - The judge refused to adjourn the trial and convicted the accused - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the accused was denied a right to make full answer and defence - The court stated that the charge of impaired driving involved complex and highly technical legal defences - See paragraphs 7, 22 and 23.

Civil Rights - Topic 3133

Due process and fair hearings - Criminal proceedings - Right of accused to make full answer and defence - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench discussed the denial of the right of an accused to make full answer and defence from the absence of retained counsel - See paragraphs 15 to 23.

Criminal Law - Topic 7261

Summary conviction proceedings - Informations - Validity - General - Two informations dated July 18 and one information dated November 27 charging the same offences were laid against an accused - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that there was no jurisdictional defect in the information of November 27 due to the existence of prior informations charging the same offences - The court stated that even if the original informations were not nullities, the laying of the November 27 information charging the same offence while the originals remained outstanding did not affect validity of any of the informations - See paragraph 6.

Criminal Law - Topic 3266

Compelling appearance, detention and release - Appearance under protest - A summons was served on an accused requiring the accused to appear in court in relation to an information laid against him - The accused was physically present in court - The accused claimed that his appearance was conditional or to protest the validity of the summons - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that an accused could only appear under protest where the protest was in relation to defects going to jurisdiction over the offence and not to defects in the process compelling the accused's appearance - See paragraph 9.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Kolot, [1968] 1 C.C.C. 50 (Sask. Q.B.), consd. [para. 6].

R. v. Policha, Ex Parte Hrischuk, [1970] 5 C.C.C. 165 (Sask. Q.B.), ref'd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Musial (1929), 31 C.C.C. 142 (N.S.S.C.), ref'd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Forbes (1953), 106 C.C.C. 193 (Que. Mag. Ct.), ref'd to. [para. 8].

Buchholz v. R. (1958), 121 C.C.C. 293 (Man. C.A.), ref'd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Iaci (1925), 44 S.C.C. 275 (B.C.C.A.), ref'd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Alberts (1925), 45 C.C.C. 51 (B.C.C.A.), ref'd to. [para. 9].

Re R. and Isbel (1928), 51 C.C.C. 362 (Ont. C.A.), ref'd to. [para. 9].

Re Stegg and Codd, [1967] 1 C.C.C. 79 (B.C.S.C.), ref'd to. [para. 9].

Re R. and Groves (1971), 5 C.C.C.(2d) 90 (B.C.S.C.), ref'd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Naylor (1978), 42 C.C.C.(2d) 12 (Ont. C.A.), ref'd to. [para. 9].

Re Hanaghan, [1979] 6 W.W.R. 183 (B.C.S.C.), ref'd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Maximick (1979), 10 C.R.(3d) 97 (B.C.C.A.), ref'd to. [para. 9].

Re Harnish and R. (1979), 49 C.C.C.(2d) 190; 38 N.S.R.(2d) 273; 69 A.P.R. 273 (N.S.C.A.), ref'd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Hrankowski (1980), 54 C.C.C.(2d) 174; 22 A.R. 597 (Alta. C.A.), ref'd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Geogen; R. v. Haesler; R. v. Gray (1980), 55 C.C.C.(2d) 218, ref'd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Harder (1980), 21 A.R. 102 (Alta. Q.B.), ref'd to. [para. 9].

R. v. McGinnis (1979), 19 A.R. 249 (Alta. C.A.), ref'd to. [para. 9].

R. v. McComish (1980), 25 A.R. 215 (Alta. Q.B.), ref'd to. [para. 9].

Re Willisko (1980), 27 A.R. 531; 13 Alta. L.R.(2d) 298 (Alta. Q.B.), ref'd to. [para. 9].

Barrette v. R. (1976), 29 C.C.C.(2d) 189, consd. [para. 13].

R. v. Ewing and Kearney, [1974] 1 W.W.R. 57 (B.C.S.C.); aff'd. [1974] 5 W.W.R. 232 (B.C.C.A.), ref'd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Gilberg, [1975] 2 W.W.R. 171 (Alta. C.A.), ref'd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Mosychuk (1978), 21 A.R. 339 (Alta. D.C.), ref'd to. [para. 14].

Griffith v. R. (1976), 33 C.R.N.S. 388 (Que. C.A.), ref'd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Chappell (1979), 25 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 213; 68 A.P.R. 213 (P.E.I.S.C.), ref'd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Kanagarajah (1980), 4 Sask.R. 149 (Sask. C.A.), ref'd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Manhas (1978), 32 N.R. 9 (B.C.C.A.), aff'd 32 N.R. 8 (S.C.C.), ref'd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Ciglen (1979), 10 C.R.(3d) 226 (Ont. H.C.J.), ref'd to. [para. 15].

Re R. and Carter (1972), 7 C.C.C.(2d) 49 (Ont. H.C.J.), ref'd to. [para. 21].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 236 [para. 2]; sect. 455.5 [para. 9]; sect. 455.5(2) [para. 8];sect. 613(1)(b)(iii) [para. 29]; sect. 613(2)(a) [para. 24]; sect. 721(2) [para. 3]; sect. 735, sect. 737, sect. 738 [para. 11]; sect. 755(1) [para. 24].

Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. I-23, sect. 25(7) [para. 3].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Salhany, R.E., Canadian Criminal Procedure (3rd Ed. 1978), pp. 49-50 [para. 8].

Counsel:

David F. Reay, for the appellant;

Patricia E. Yelle, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard before WACHOWICH, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Red Deer, who delivered the following judgment in August 1982: