R. v. South Rock Ltd. et al.,

• Judge: Stevenson
• Neutral Citation: 2002 ABPC 66
• Citation: 2002 ABPC 66,(2002), 316 A.R. 329 (PC),316 AR 329,(2002), 316 AR 329 (PC),316 A.R. 329
• Date: 19 April 2002
• Court: Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)

R. v. South Rock Ltd. (2002), 316 A.R. 329 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: A.R. TBEd. MY.094

Her Majesty the Queen v. South Rock Ltd., Sid Lafferty, Larry Lafferty and Greg Lobb

(016691396P1; 2002 ABPC 66)

Indexed As: R. v. South Rock Ltd. et al.

Alberta Provincial Court

Stevenson, A.C.J.P.C.

April 19, 2002.

Summary:

A company and three individuals were charged with several charges under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. The ordinary venue for the trial, the closest venue to the accident, could not accommodate the trial within any reasonable time span. The next closest venue was Calgary. Several defendants applied to change the venue to Medicine Hat.

The Alberta Provincial Court allowed the application.

Criminal Law - Topic 4616

Procedure - Trials - Venue or place - Change of - Grounds - General - A company and three individuals faced several charges under the Occupational Health and Safety Act - The ordinary venue for the trial, the closest venue to the accident, could not accommodate the trial within any reasonable time span - The next closest venue was Calgary - Several defendants applied to change the venue to Medicine Hat (Criminal Code, s. 599(1); Provincial Offences Procedure Act, ss. 2, 3) - The company's head office and the individual defendants' residences were there - They argued the evidence available at Medicine Hat was vital to enable them to make full answer and defence - The Alberta Provincial Court allowed the application - Given the nature of the charges, the availability of evidence and witnesses and the requirement of continued presence at trial, there was a preponderance of convenience for the defendants to have the trial held in Medicine Hat - Further, a failure to hold the trial in Medicine Hat might result in a denial of justice for the defendants.

Criminal Law - Topic 4618

Procedure - Trials - Venue or place - Change of - Reasonable probability of denial of a fair trial - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4616 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Munson (K.) et al. (2001), 212 Sask.R. 29 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Harris (1762), 97 E.R. 858 (K.B.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. White and Johnson (1988), 93 A.R. 254 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Sault Ste. Marie (City), [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1299; 21 N.R. 295, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Falkner (1978), 45 C.C.C.(2d) 146 (B.C. Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 19].

Wade Investments Ltd. v. Hat Travel Ltd. et al. (1979), 21 A.R. 454 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 21].

Church v. Barnett (1871), L.R. 6 C.P. 116, refd to. [para. 21].

McDonald v. Dawson (1904), 8 O.L.R. 72, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Canada Packers Inc., [1984] A.J. No. 121, refd to. [para. 23].

Counsel:

D. Myrol, for the Crown;

K. Staroszik, for South Rock Ltd.;

A. Leis, for Greg Lobb;

R. Pick, for Sid Lafferty;

H. Wahl, for Larry Lafferty.

This application was heard before Stevenson, A.C.J.P.C., of the Alberta Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on April 19, 2002.