R. v. Stobbe (M.J.), 2012 MBQB 27

• Judge: Martin, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Canada)
• Case Date: January 25, 2012
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: 2012 MBQB 27;(2012), 277 Man.R.(2d) 108 (QB)

R. v. Stobbe (M.J.) (2012), 277 Man.R.(2d) 108 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2012] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. MY.011

Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) v. Mark Jacob Stobbe (accused/applicant)

(CR 08-01-28290; 2012 MBQB 27)

Indexed As: R. v. Stobbe (M.J.)

Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench

Winnipeg Centre

Martin, J.

January 25, 2012.

Summary:

The accused was facing a trial on a second degree murder charge arising from his wife's death. The accused sought to quash a search warrant alleging a breach of his s. 8 Charter rights.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench declined to give a ruling regarding the s. 8 motion.

Editor's Note: This case was subject to the following restriction on publication: "Pursuant to an order of this court, as noted herein, there is a ban on the publication of portions of these reasons for judgment until such time as the accused in respect of whom the proceedings are held is tried and the trial is ended". By email dated May 4, 2012, the court advised that the trial had ended, thus the following decision could be published.

Civil Rights - Topic 8590.1

Canadian Charter of Rights of Freedoms - Practice - Voir dire - Procedure (incl. bifurcation) - The accused was facing a trial for second degree murder - He sought to quash a search warrant, alleging a breach of his s. 8 Charter rights - He did not seek to have the evidence excluded under s. 24 of the Charter - To the contrary, he asserted that such evidence should be admitted - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench declined to give a ruling regarding the s. 8 motion - The court expressed concerns as to the propriety of bifurcating the issue of the breach from the remedy - Further, the court considered that its ruling on the s. 8 motion would be of no consequence as defence counsel only hoped to use the ruling to buttress arguments made on another motion before the court - See paragraphs 1 to 15.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Dhillon (K.) (2010), 259 Man.R.(2d) 55; 2010 MBQB 222, refd to. [para. 10].

Counsel:

Wendy Dawson, Q.C., and Autumn Netting, for the Crown;

Tim Killeen and Shannon McNicol, for the accused/applicant.

This motion was heard before Martin, J., of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Winnipeg Centre, who delivered the following decision on January 25, 2012.