R. v. Song (D.), (2001) 296 A.R. 132 (QB)

• Judge: Watson, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: July 25, 2001
• Citations: (2001), 296 A.R. 132 (QB);2001 ABQB 689

R. v. Song (D.) (2001), 296 A.R. 132 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] A.R. TBEd. AU.102

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Daniel Song (applicant)

(Action No. 98132-8155-U1; 2001 ABQB 689)

Indexed As: R. v. Song (D.)

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Watson, J.

July 31, 2001.

Summary:

An Information charged the applicant with drug related offences. At the preliminary inquiry, the applicant's counsel asked a police sergeant about the reasons why a particular undercover agent was no longer used. The Crown objected. The preliminary inquiry judge ruled against the question. The applicant brought a motion seeking orders for Crown disclosure about the undercover agent and remedies in default thereof. The applicant contended that the orders sought were outside of the preliminary inquiry judge's jurisdiction and that disclosure at this stage of the prosecution was vital to his ability to make full answer and defence.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the motion, holding that it did not have jurisdiction to grant the orders sought.

Civil Rights - Topic 3133

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Right of accused to make full answer and defence - [See Criminal Law - Topic 128 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 128

Rights of accused - Right to make full answer and defence - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench did not agree with a sug­gestion that the right to make full answer and defence as reflected under s. 650(3) of the Criminal Code and in the Charter jurisprudence was the same as between trials and preliminary inquiries - The stakes at a preliminary inquiry were differ­ent and the purpose of a preliminary inquiry was different - See paragraphs 45 and 82.

Criminal Law - Topic 129

Rights of accused - Right to discovery or production - [See Criminal Law - Topic 3531.2 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 2924

Jurisdiction - Superior Court Judges - Power to order disclosure - [See Criminal Law - Topic 3531.2 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 3531.2

Preliminary inquiry - Jurisdiction - To order disclosure - An Information charged the applicant with drug related offences - At the preliminary inquiry, the applicant's counsel asked a police sergeant about the reasons why a particular undercover agent was no longer used - The Crown objected - The preliminary inquiry judge ruled against the question - The applicant brought a motion seeking orders for Crown disclosure about the undercover agent and remedies in default thereof - The applicant contended that the orders sought were outside of the preliminary inquiry judge's jurisdiction and that disclosure at this stage was vital to his ability to make full answer and defence - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that it did not have jurisdiction to grant the orders sought - The court stated that "[t]he absence of an ability of a preliminary inquiry judge to command Crown disclosure over its objec­tion at a preliminary inquiry does not enact a basis for Queen's Bench superintendence of rulings of preliminary inquiry judges as to relevance or efficiency of those proceed­ings. Absent jurisdictional default by the preliminary inquiry judge, challenged by a correctly launched motion for certiorari, I cannot interfere in the manner suggested".

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Newsome (W.L.) et al. (1996), 197 A.R. 221 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 5, foot­note 1].

R. v. Newsome (W.L.) et al. (1996), 199 A.R. 309 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 5, foot­note 1].

Carey v. Ontario et al., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 637; 72 N.R. 81; 20 O.A.C. 81; 35 D.L.R.(4th) 161; 30 C.C.C.(3d) 498; 59 O.R.(2d) 352, refd to. [para. 18, footnote 2].

Canada (Attorney General) et al. v. Sander, [1994] 8 W.W.R. 512; 44 B.C.A.C. 200; 72 W.A.C. 200; 90 C.C.C.(3d) 41 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19, footnote 3].

R. v. Richards (M.) (1997), 100 O.A.C. 215; 115 C.C.C.(3d) 377 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19, footnote 4].

R. v. Lam (K.G.) (2000), 143 B.C.A.C. 193; 235 W.A.C. 193; 148 C.C.C.(3d) 379; 38 C.R.(5th) 189 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19, footnote 5].

R. v. Meuckon (1990), 57 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 21, footnote 6].

R. v. Girimonte (F.) (1997), 105 O.A.C. 337; 121 C.C.C.(3d) 33; 12 C.R.(5th) 332 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25, footnote 7].

R. v. W.B. (2000), 134 O.A.C. 1; 145 C.C.C.(3d) 449; 34 C.R.(5th) 197; 49 O.R.(3d) 321 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27, footnote 8].

R. v. Meddoui, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 320, affing. [1990] A.J. No. 455 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29, footnote 9].

R. v. B.A.W., [1992] 3 S.C.R. 811; 145 N.R. 87; 59 O.A.C. 323, reving. (1991), 145 N.R. 89; 59 O.A.C. 325; 13 W.C.B.(2d) 682 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29, footnote 10].

R. v. A.R.B., [2000] 1 S.C.R. 781; 255 N.R. 201; 135 O.A.C. 144; 146 C.C.C.(3d) 191; 48 O.R.(3d) 640, affing. (1998), 113 O.A.C. 286; 41 O.R.(3d) 361; 128 C.C.C.(3d) 457; 18 C.R.(5th) 241 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29, footnote 11].

R. v. Schmidt (B.S.) (2001), 146 B.C.A.C. 111; 239 W.A.C. 111; 151 C.C.C.(3d) 74 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30, footnote 12].

R. v. Ghorvei (M.) (1999), 124 O.A.C. 301; 138 C.C.C.(3d) 340; 29 C.R.(5th) 102 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30, footnote 13].

R. v. Barnes (M.) (1999), 124 O.A.C. 157 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30, footnote 14].

R. v. Clarke (H.E.) (1998), 112 O.A.C. 233; 18 C.R.(5th) 219; 129 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31, footnote 15].

R. v. Tahal (E.) (1999), 122 O.A.C. 109; 137 C.C.C.(3d) 206 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32, footnote 16].

R. v. Campbell (J.) and Shirose (S.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 565; 237 N.R. 86; 119 O.A.C. 201; 133 C.C.C.(3d) 257; 24 C.R.(5th) 365, refd to. [para. 40, foot­note 17].

R. v. Thurston (D.T.) et al., [2000] B.C.J. No. 1919 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 41, foot­note 18].

R. v. Thurston (D.T.) et al., [2000] B.C.T.C. 3 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 41, footnote 18].

R. v. Derose (A.S.) et al., [2000] 9 W.W.R. 334; 268 A.R. 154; 81 Alta. L.R.(3d) 359 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 41, footnote 19].

R. v. Mah (J.) et al. (2001), 288 A.R. 249 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 41, footnote 20].

R. v. Gingras (1992), 120 A.R. 300; 8 W.A.C. 300; 71 C.C.C.(3d) 53 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 43, footnote 21].

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. 43, footnote 22].

Cohen and Quebec (Attorney General), Re, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 305; 27 N.R. 344; 13 C.R.(3d) 36; 97 D.L.R.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 44, footnote 23].

Roussell v. R., [1979] 3 W.W.R. 755; 46 C.C.C.(2d) 452 (Alta. T.D.), affd. [1979] 6 W.W.R. 614; 48 C.C.C.(2d) 159 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 44, footnote 24].

R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326; 130 N.R. 277; 120 A.R. 161; 8 W.A.C. 161; 68 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 8 C.R.(4th) 277; [1992] 1 W.W.R. 97; 83 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193, refd to. [para. 47, footnote 25].

R. v. Fields (1986), 16 O.A.C. 286; 28 C.C.C.(3d) 353; 53 C.R.(3d) 260; 56 O.R.(2d) 213 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 52, footnote 26].

R. v. Domm (G.) (1996), 95 O.A.C. 262; 111 C.C.C.(3d) 449; 4 C.R.(5th) 61; 31 O.R.(3d) 540, leave to appeal denied (1997), 215 N.R. 320; 102 O.A.C. 320 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 52, footnote 26].

R. v. Corbett, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 670; 85 N.R. 81; 64 C.R.(3d) 1; [1988] 4 W.W.R. 481; 28 B.C.L.R.(2d) 145; 41 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 34 C.R.R. 54, refd to. [para. 54, footnote 54].

R. v. Seaboyer and Gayme, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 577; 128 N.R. 81; 48 O.A.C. 81; 66 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 7 C.R.(4th) 117; 83 D.L.R.(4th) 193; 6 C.R.R.(2d) 35, refd to. [para. 54, footnote 28].

R. v. Darrach (A.S.), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 443; 259 N.R. 336; 137 O.A.C. 91; 148 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 191 D.L.R.(4th) 539; 36 C.R.(5th) 223, refd to. [para. 54, foot­note 29].

R. v. D.D.W., [1998] 2 S.C.R. 681; 231 N.R. 322; 113 B.C.A.C. 296; 184 W.A.C. 296; 129 C.C.C.(3d) 226, refd to. [para. 56, footnote 30].

R. v. Scaduto (S.) (1999), 97 O.T.C. 307 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 56, footnote 31].

R. v. Siemens (F.) (1998), 209 A.R. 375; 160 W.A.C. 375; 122 C.C.C.(3d) 552 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 56, footnote 32].

R. v. Gruenke, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 263; 130 N.R. 161; 75 Man.R.(2d) 112; 6 W.A.C. 112; 8 C.R.(4th) 368; [1991] 6 W.W.R. 673; 7 C.R.R.(2d) 108; 67 C.C.C.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 57, footnote 33].

R. v. Carosella (N.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 80; 207 N.R. 321; 98 O.A.C. 81; 112 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 4 C.R.(5th) 139; 142 D.L.R.(4th) 595, refd to. [para. 58, foot­note 34].

R. v. Dixon (S.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 244; 222 N.R. 243; 166 N.S.R.(2d) 241; 498 A.P.R. 241; 122 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 13 C.R.(5th) 241, refd to. [para. 58, foot­note 35].

R. v. Smith (C.J.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 291; 222 N.R. 327; 165 N.S.R.(2d) 163; 495 A.P.R. 163; 122 C.C.C.(3d) 27, refd to. [para. 58, footnote 35].

R. v. Skinner (S.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 298; 222 N.R. 236; 165 N.S.R.(2d) 145; 495 A.P.R. 145; 122 C.C.C.(3d) 31, refd to. [para. 58, footnote 35].

R. v. Robart (G.L.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 279; 222 N.R. 321; 165 N.S.R.(2d) 171; 495 A.P.R. 171; 122 C.C.C.(3d) 36, refd to. [para. 58, footnote 35].

R. v. McQuaid (H.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 285; 222 N.R. 236; 165 N.S.R.(2d) 153; 495 A.P.R. 153; 122 C.C.C.(3d) 40, refd to. [para. 58, footnote 35].

R. v. McClure (D.E.) (2001), 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) 19 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 67, footnote 36].

R. v. Altunamaz (O.), [1999] O.J. No. 2262 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 68, foot­note 37].

R. v. Edwards (J.), [1991] 2 All E.R. 266; [1991] 1 W.L.R. 297 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 72, footnote 38].

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, refd to. [para. 77, footnote 40].

R. v. O'Connor (H.P.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 411; 191 N.R. 1; 68 B.C.A.C. 1; 112 W.A.C. 1; [1996] 2 W.W.R. 153; 103 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 29 W.C.B.(2d) 152; 44 C.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 77, footnote 41].

R. v. Hynes (D.W.) (2001), 278 N.R. 299; (2001), 208 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 181; 624 A.P.R. 181 (S.C.C.), reving. (1999), 177 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 232; 543 A.P.R. 232; 26 C.R.(5th) 1 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 77, footnote 42].

Mooring v. National Parole Board et al., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 75; 192 N.R. 161; 70 B.C.A.C. 1; 115 W.A.C. 1; 104 C.C.C.(3d) 97; [1996] 3 W.W.R. 305; 45 C.R.(4th) 265, refd to. [para. 77, foot­note 43].

Director of Public Prosecutions v. Humph­reys, [1977] A.C. 1; [1976] 2 W.L.R. 857; 63 Cr. App. Rep. 95; [1976] 2 All E.R. 497 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 79, foot­note 44].

R. v. Jewitt, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 128; 61 N.R. 159; 21 C.C.C.(3d) 7; 47 C.R.(3d) 193; 20 D.L.R.(4th) 651; [1985] 6 W.W.R. 127, refd to. [para. 79, footnote 45].

R. v. Cutforth, [1988] 1 W.W.R. 274; 81 A.R. 213; 61 C.R.(3d) 187; 55 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193; 40 C.C.C.(3d) 253; 12 M.V.R.(2d) 248 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 79, footnote 46].

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, refd to. [para. 80, footnote 47].

R. v. Pan (R.W.); R. v. Sawyer (B.) (2001), 270 N.R. 317; 147 O.A.C. 1 (S.C.C.), affing. (1999), 120 O.A.C. 1; 134 C.C.C.(3d) 23; 26 C.R.(5th) 87 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 80, footnote 48].

R. v. Regan (G.A.) (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. 80, footnote 49].

R. v. Regan (G.A.) (1999), 175 N.S.R.(2d) 295; 534 A.P.R. 295 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 80, footnote 49].

R. v. Mills (B.J.), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 668; 248 N.R. 101; 244 A.R. 201; 209 W.A.C. 201; 139 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 28 C.R.(5th) 207; [2000] 2 W.W.R. 180; 75 Alta. L.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 81, foot­note 50].

R. v. Wong (P.K.) (2000), 272 A.R. 303 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 84, footnote 51].

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, refd to. [para. 84, footnote 52].

Saunders v. R., [1970] S.C.R. 109; 8 C.R.N.S. 345; 71 W.W.R.(N.S.) 4; [1970] 2 C.C.C. 57; 10 D.L.R.(3d) 638, refd to. [para. 85, footnote 53].

R. v. Patterson, [1970] S.C.R. 409; 10 C.R.N.S. 55; 72 W.W.R.(N.S.) 35; 2 C.C.C.(2d) 229; 9 D.L.R.(3d) 398, refd to. [para. 85, footnote 54].

R. v. Kendall; R. v. McCaffery, [1983] 2 W.W.R. 70; 42 A.R. 183; 2 C.C.C.(3d) 224; 23 Alta. L.R.(2d) 189; 18 M.V.R. 252; 144 D.L.R.(3d) 185 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 86, footnote 55].

Anson v. R., [1983] 3 W.W.R. 336; 35 C.R.(3d) 179; 42 B.C.L.R. 282; 4 C.C.C.(3d) 199; 146 D.L.R.(3d) 661; 4 C.R.R. 337 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 86, footnote 56].

Krakowski v. R. (1983), 4 C.C.C.(3d) 188; 146 D.L.R.(3d) 760; 5 C.R.R. 16; 41 O.R.(2d) 321 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 86, footnote 57].

R. v. Archer (1989), 94 A.R. 323; 47 C.C.C.(3d) 567 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 87, footnote 58].

R. v. McCullough (G.B.) (2000), 203 Sask.R. 61; 240 W.A.C. 61; 151 C.C.C.(3d) 281 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 87, footnote 59].

R. v. Adams (D.C.) (2001), 290 A.R. 316 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 88, foot­note 60].

R. v. O'Carroll, [2000] O.T.C. 548 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 89, footnote 61].

R. v. Simpson (R.) et al., [2000] O.T.C. 295 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 89, foot­note 62].

Counsel:

R. Scott McDougall, for the Crown, respondent;

Sid M. Tarrabain (Tarrabain, O'Byrne & Company), for the applicant.

This motion was heard on July 25, 2001, before Watson, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmon­ton, who delivered the following judgment on July 31, 2001.