R. v. Sturgeon (C.), (2008) 334 N.B.R.(2d) 94 (PC)

• Judge: Ferguson, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of New Brunswick (Canada)
• Case Date: February 14, 2008
• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Citations: (2008), 334 N.B.R.(2d) 94 (PC);2008 NBPC 22

R. v. Sturgeon (C.) (2008), 334 N.B.R.(2d) 94 (PC);

    334 R.N.-B.(2e) 94; 858 A.P.R. 94

MLB headnote and full text

Sommaire et texte intégral

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2008] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. MY.004

Renvoi temp.: [2008] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. MY.004

Her Majesty the Queen v. Calvin Sturgeon

(2008 NBPC 22; 2008 NBCP 22; 13685413)

Indexed As: R. v. Sturgeon (C.)

Répertorié: R. v. Sturgeon (C.)

New Brunswick Provincial Court

Ferguson, P.C.J.

May 2, 2008.

Summary:

Résumé:

The accused was charged with driving offences said to have occurred on April 27, 2007. The information was sworn on June 25, 2007. The trial commenced on February 14, 2008. The Crown led evidence relating to May 16, 2007. The defence objected that the evidence was irrelevant. The Crown moved to amend the information to correct the date of the offence.

The New Brunswick Provincial Court granted the motion.

Criminal Law - Topic 7256

Summary conviction proceedings - Informations - Time for laying of - [See both Criminal Law - Topic 7276 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 7276

Summary conviction proceedings - Informations - Amendments - Effect of - The accused was charged with driving offences said to have occurred on April 27, 2007 - The information was sworn on June 25, 2007 - The trial commenced on February 14, 2008 - The Crown led evidence relating to May 16, 2007 - The defence objected that the evidence was irrelevant - The Crown moved to amend the information to correct the date of the offence - The defence asserted that the amendment was statute-barred (more than six months since the alleged offence date) in that the amendment would effectively commence a new proceeding - The New Brunswick Provincial Court granted the Crown's motion - The court rejected the argument that the Crown was attempting to prosecute "different subject matter" - None of the substantive allegations were proposed to be amended - The issue was nothing more than whether the amendment constituted the initiation of proceedings - If so, it was barred by s. 782(2) of the Criminal Code - Here, the amendment did not constitute the initiation of a new proceeding because it was one that, although it was being made at a time beyond the prescription period for instituting proceedings, it would have been within the prescription period for charge initiation had it been properly deposed on the date the proceedings were originally initiated - The proper mechanism to effect the change was s. 601(2)(a) of the Code - See paragraphs 30 to 32.

Criminal Law - Topic 7276

Summary conviction proceedings - Informations - Amendments - Effect of - The New Brunswick Provincial Court reviewed the authorities regarding whether, when the Crown proposed an amendment to the date of an alleged offence in a summary conviction information after the six month limitation period for initiating such proceedings had expired, that amendment constituted the initiation of proceedings within the meaning of s. 786(2) of the Code - The court extracted and summarized five guiding principles that emerged from the authorities - See paragraphs 20 to 30.

Droit criminel - Cote 7256

Procédures sommaires - Dénonciations - Moment pour déposer la dénonciations - [Voir Criminal Law - Topic 7256 ].

Droit criminel - Cote 7276

Procédures sommaires - Dénonciations - Modifications - Effet - [Voir Criminal Law - Topic 7276 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. McConnell (D.R.) (2005), 197 O.A.C. 177; 196 C.C.C.(3d) 28 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Callocchia (T.) and D'Angelo (G.) (2000), 149 C.C.C.(3d) 215 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Chaussé (1986), 28 C.C.C.(3d) 412 (Que. C.A.), dist. [para. 10].

R. v. Daoust (C.) et al., [2004] 1 S.C.R. 217; 316 N.R. 203, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Morozuk, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 31; 64 N.R. 189, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Campbell and Kotler, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 376; 70 N.R. 161; 18 O.A.C. 239; 29 C.C.C.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Fox (1986), 24 C.C.C.(3d) 366 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Carlson (R.J.) (1995), 142 N.S.R.(2d) 248; 407 A.P.R. 248 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Mansour (M.A.) (1999), 180 N.S.R.(2d) 51; 557 A.P.R. 51 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. G.B. et al. (No. 2), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 30; 111 N.R. 31; 86 Sask.R. 111; 56 C.C.C.(3d) 200, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. C.A.S. (1997), 87 B.C.A.C. 217; 143 W.A.C. 217; 117 C.C.C.(3d) 356 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Canadian Industries Ltd. (1982), 41 N.B.R.(2d) 631; 107 A.P.R. 631; 69 C.C.C.(3d) 533 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Ross, [1949] O.J. No. 126 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Irving (J.D.) Ltd. (1975), 12 N.B.R.(2d) 108; 10 A.P.R. 108; 28 C.C.C.(2d) 242 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Ayer, [1908] O.J. No. 76 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Wakeley, [1918-19] All E.R. Rep. 1157 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. St. Stephen Woodworking Ltd. (1972), 5 N.B.R.(2d) 230; 8 C.C.C.(2d) 377 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Ewaschuk, Eugene G., Criminal Pleadings and Practice in Canada (2nd Ed.), p. 9-61, para. 9:12130 [para. 13]; para. 9:10050 [para. 18].

Counsel:

Avocats:

John J. Walsh, Q.C., for the Crown;

Aloysius Hayes, for the defence.

This motion was heard at Miramichi, New Brunswick, on February 14, 2008, by Ferguson, P.C.J., of the New Brunswick Provincial Court, who delivered the following decision on May 2, 2008.