R. v. Tesar (J.), (2010) 373 Sask.R. 13 (QB)

• Judge: Maher, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: December 07, 2010
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2010), 373 Sask.R. 13 (QB);2010 SKQB 449

R. v. Tesar (J.) (2010), 373 Sask.R. 13 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2010] Sask.R. TBEd. DE.015

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Josef Tesar (appellant)

(2009 QBA No. 5; 2010 SKQB 449)

Indexed As: R. v. Tesar (J.)

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Prince Albert

Maher, J.

December 7, 2010.

Summary:

The Saskatchewan Provincial Court, in a decision reported 352 Sask.R. 1, convicted the accused of mischief by wilfully interfering with the lawful enjoyment of property. The court also convicted the accused of breach of an undertaking. The accused appealed.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 4684

Procedure - Judgments and reasons for judgment - Reasons for judgment - Sufficiency of - The trial judge convicted the accused of mischief by wilfully interfering with the lawful enjoyment of property - His reasons for conviction referred to repeated incidents in which the accused would, at all hours, park a vehicle in front of the complainants' dining room window, shine the headlights in the dining room, rev up his engine numerous times, etc. - The time period covered by the offence was 124 days - The accused appealed, complaining that the trial judge's analysis was insufficient - The accused argued that the trial judge had failed to resolve an evidence conflict between a police video for a four-day period and the complainants' viva voce evidence - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the appeal - When one excluded the evidence respecting the four-day period, there remained "ample evidence on events on other occasions to understand the trial judge's decision and how the decision was arrived at" - See paragraphs 8 to 14.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Andres (1979), 1 Sask.R. 96 (C.A.), consd. [para. 5].

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, consd. [para. 6].

R. v. Gorman (R.), [2000] Sask.R. Uned. 12; 2000 SKQB 12, consd. [para. 7].

R. v. Sheppard (C.), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 869; 284 N.R. 342; 211 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 50; 633 A.P.R. 50; 2002 SCC 26, consd. [para. 8].

R. v. Braich (A.) et al., [2002] 1 S.C.R. 903; 285 N.R. 162; 164 B.C.A.C. 1; 268 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 27, consd. [para. 9].

R. v. Dinardo (J.), [2008] 1 S.C.R. 788; 374 N.R. 198; 2008 SCC 24, consd. [para. 9].

R. v. C.R.C. (2009), 324 Sask.R. 37; 451 W.A.C. 37; 2009 SKCA 13, consd. [para. 9].

R. v. Major (W.S.) (2004), 241 Sask.R. 306; 313 W.A.C. 306; 2004 SKCA 32, consd. [para. 13].

R. v. McLeod (L.) (2008), 309 Sask.R. 269; 2008 SKQB 14, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Enden (A.) (2007), 304 Sask.R. 283; 413 W.A.C. 283; 2007 SKCA 100, refd to. [para. 13].

Counsel:

J. Morrall, for the Crown;

P.A. Abrametz, for the appellant.

This appeal was heard by Maher, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Prince Albert, who delivered the following judgment on December 7, 2010.