R. v. Stewart (R.), (1999) 100 O.T.C. 194 (SC)

• Judge: Caputo, J.
• Court: Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
• Case Date: June 22, 1999
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1999), 100 O.T.C. 194 (SC)

R. v. Stewart (R.) (1999), 100 O.T.C. 194 (SC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] O.T.C. TBEd. JL.141

Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) v. Ronald Stewart (appellant)

(Court File No. 98-CR-05451)

Indexed As: R. v. Stewart (R.)

Court of Ontario

Superior Court of Justice

Caputo, J.

June 22, 1999.

Summary:

The accused, a police officer, was charged with, inter alia, pointing a firearm at another officer. He applied to stay the proceedings alleging that his Charter right to a trial within a reasonable time was violated (Charter, ss. 7, 11(b)). The time between the laying of the charge and trial completion was 28 months (30 months until sentencing). The primary causes of the delay were two Crown applications to remove successive defence counsel for conflict. The Crown was successful on the first one but failed in the second. The trial judge held that both applications had considerable merit, were not an unreasonable delay and therefore not attributable to the Crown and dismissed the stay application. The trial judge convicted the accused. The trial judge concluded that there was an element of a breach of trust in the manner that the accused used his firearm. He was on duty. The gun actually touched the victim's head and was pointed at her face. The victim suffered serious setbacks. The accused showed no remorse. The trial judge concluded that a conditional discharge was contrary to the public interest and sentenced the accused to 12 months' probation, prohibited him from possessing a firearm for 12 months and ordered him to perform 100 hours of community service work. The accused appealed the dismissal of the stay application, his conviction and sentence.

The Ontario Superior Court held that the Crown acted in good faith, but without necessity, reasonableness and merit in pursuing the second application to remove defence counsel causing unreasonable delay. The charge was stayed. The court held that guilty verdict was reasonable and that the sentence was within the appropriate range. Given the stay, the court vacated the conviction and sentence.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 1616.2

Relationship with client - Conflict of interest - Where former client testifying in action - See paragraphs 81 to 93.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 1617

Relationship with client - Conflict of interest - Situations not resulting in conflict - See paragraphs 81 to 93.

Civil Rights - Topic 3265

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Speedy trial - Accused's right to - What constitutes "within a reasonable time" - See paragraphs 12 to 106.

Civil Rights - Topic 3270

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Speedy trial - Accused's right to - Evidence of prejudice and causes of delay - See paragraphs 12 to 106.

Criminal Law - Topic 4431

Procedure - Verdicts, discharges and dismissals - Conditional discharge in lieu of conviction - See paragraphs 136 to 139.

Criminal Law - Topic 5967

Sentence - Pointing a firearm - See paragraphs 136 to 139.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Askov, Hussey, Melo and Gugliotta, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1199; 113 N.R. 241; 42 O.A.C. 81; 59 C.C.C.(3d) 449; 79 C.R.(3d) 273; 49 C.R.R. 1; 74 D.L.R.(4th) 355; 75 O.R.(2d) 673, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. CIP Inc., [1992] 1 S.C.R. 843; 135 N.R. 90; 52 O.A.C. 366; 12 C.R.(4th) 237; 71 C.C.C.(3d) 129, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Morin, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 771; 134 N.R. 321; 53 O.A.C. 241; 71 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. G.C.M. (1991), 46 O.A.C. 126; 3 O.R.(3d) 223 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Conway, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1659; 96 N.R. 241; 34 O.A.C. 165; 49 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 70 C.R.(3d) 209, refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Atkinson (G.W.) et al. (1991), 50 O.A.C. 48; 68 C.C.C.(3d) 109 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Philip (K.) (1993), 60 O.A.C. 391; 80 C.C.C.(3d) 167 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Smith (M.H.), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1120; 102 N.R. 205; 63 Man.R.(2d) 81; 52 C.C.C.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Finn (D.M.) (1996), 139 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 97; 433 A.P.R. 97; 106 C.C.C.(3d) 43 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. Finn (D.M.) (1997), 207 N.R. 244; 148 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 89; 464 A.P.R. 89; 5 C.R.(5th) 375 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. Allen (H.D.) (1996), 92 O.A.C. 345; 110 C.C.C.(3d) 331 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Bennett (1991), 46 O.A.C. 99; 64 C.C.C.(3d) 449 (C.A.), affd. [1992] 2 S.C.R. 168; 138 N.R. 388; 54 O.A.C. 350; 74 C.C.C.(3d) 384, refd to. [para. 48].

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, refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Collins (M.E.), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1104; 183 N.R. 285; 82 O.A.C. 365, 99 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 40 C.R.(4th) 277, refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Pelfrey - see R. v. Collins (M.E.).

R. v. Heaslip, McGale, Stillwell and Tartaglia (1983), 1 O.A.C. 81; 9 C.C.C.(3d) 480 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. S.D. et al. (1992), 138 N.R. 385; 54 O.A.C. 343; 14 C.R.(4th) 223; 72 C.C.C.(3d) 575 (S.C.C.), reving. (1991), 48 O.A.C. 1; 66 C.C.C.(3d) 173 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. Sander (S.) (1995), 58 B.C.A.C. 115; 96 W.A.C. 115; 98 C.C.C.(3d) 564 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 58].

R. v. Hughes (A.), [1998] B.C.T.C. Uned. F05 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 58].

R. v. Cornachia (J.) (1994), 72 O.A.C. 310 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 59].

R. v. J.G.B. (1992), 58 O.A.C. 169; 85 C.C.C.(3d) 112 (C.A.), affd. (1993), 157 N.R. 373; 66 O.A.C. 235; 85 C.C.C.(3d) 117 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 59].

MacDonald Estate v. Martin and Rossmere Holdings (1970) Ltd., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1235; 121 N.R. 1; 70 Man.R.(2d) 241; 77 D.L.R.(4th) 249; [1991] 1 W.W.R. 705, refd to. [para. 84].

Gray, Administrator of MacDonald Estate - see MacDonald Estate v. Martin and Rossmere Holdings (1970) Ltd.

Martin v. Gray - see MacDonald Estate v. Martin and Rossmere Holdings (1970) Ltd.

R. v. Robillard (1986), 14 O.A.C. 314; 28 C.C.C.(3d) 22 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 87].

R. v. A.S. (1996), 28 O.R.(3d) 663 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 89].

R. v. R.W., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 122; 137 N.R. 214; 54 O.A.C. 164; 74 C.C.C.(3d) 134; 13 C.R.(4th) 257, refd to. [para. 116].

R. v. Harper, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 2; 40 N.R. 255; 133 D.L.R.(3d) 546; 65 C.C.C.(2d) 193, refd to. [para. 117].

R. v. G.B. et al. (No. 3), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 57; 111 N.R. 62; 86 Sask.R. 142; 77 C.R.(3d) 370; 56 C.C.C.(3d) 181, refd to. [para. 118].

Ungaro v. R. (1950), 96 C.C.C. 245 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 118].

R. v. Bourque, [1969] 4 C.C.C. 358 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 119].

R. v. McShannock (1980), 55 C.C.C.(2d) 53 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 120].

R. v. Tillekaratna (D.) (1998), 108 O.A.C. 281; 124 C.C.C.(3d) 556 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 120].

R. v. Sillipp (E.F.) (1997), 209 A.R. 253; 160 W.A.C. 253; 120 C.C.C.(3d) 384 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied (1998), 228 N.R. 195; 219 A.R. 107; 179 W.A.C. 107 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 120].

R. v. Burns (R.H.), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 656; 165 N.R. 374; 42 B.C.A.C. 161; 67 W.A.C. 161; 89 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 29 C.R.(4th) 113, refd to. [para. 124].

R. v. François (L.), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 827; 169 N.R. 241; 73 O.A.C. 161; 91 C.C.C.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 125].

R. v. D.W., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742; 122 N.R. 277; 46 O.A.C. 352; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 397; 3 C.R.(4th) 302, refd to. [para. 127].

R. v. Samaroo (M.) (1996), 4 O.T.C. 100 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 131].

Counsel:

Robert N. Morris, for the Crown;

Michael H. Gordner, for the appellant.

This appeal was heard on May 25 to 28, 1999, before Caputo, J., of the Ontario Superior Court, who delivered the following judgment on June 22, 1999.