R. v. Ticknovich (N.M.), (2003) 343 A.R. 243 (QB)

• Judge: Watson, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: October 20, 2003
• Citations: (2003), 343 A.R. 243 (QB);2003 ABQB 854

R. v. Ticknovich (N.M.) (2003), 343 A.R. 243 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] A.R. TBEd. OC.079

Her Majesty the Queen v.

Nicole Marie Ticknovich

(017299199 Q3; 2003 ABQB 854)

Indexed As: R. v. Ticknovich (N.M.)

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Watson, J.

October 20, 2003.

Summary:

The accused was charged with five counts of fraud and attempted fraud.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench convicted the accused of all five counts.

Criminal Law - Topic 2003

Fraudulent transactions - Fraud - Intent to defraud - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "Merely because one is aware of other persons conducting or participating in a fraud, and because one is a possible beneficiary of the fraud, does not of itself mean one is a party to the fraud. There must be at least a form of knowing assistance or abetting under s. 21 of the [Criminal] Code accompanied by the intent to have the fraud unfold. On the other hand, proof of the mental element of fraud is often solely a matter of inference. On the other hand, it is also clear that in relation to offences involving more than one person, a Trial Judge may find the proof of actus reus and mens rea to be sufficiently made beyond a reasonable doubt by the Crown on a party basis within the meaning of s. 21(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the Criminal Code. Fraud is not an offence separated from the application of s. 21 of the Code." - See paragraphs 5 and 6.

Criminal Law - Topic 2124

Fraudulent transactions - Evidence and proof - Inference of fraud - [See Criminal Law - Topic 2003 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 2630

Attempts, conspiracies, accessories and parties - Attempts - Evidence - The accused was charged with attempted fraud - Pemberton and Zurowski were also alleged to have been involved in the offence - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that it was not persuaded that a trier of fact was obliged to decide "attempt" based solely on the particular involvement of the accused charged in an agreement offence or multi-party offence - The court stated that even if Zurowski had a more leading role at an earlier stage of the events, the accused's participation could not be assessed in a freeze-frame method to distinguish it from Zurowski's preliminaries and Pemberton's follow ups - See paragraph 488.

Criminal Law - Topic 2682

Attempts, conspiracies, accessories and parties - Conspiracies - Conspirator's exception to hearsay rule - An accused was charged with fraud and attempted fraud - The Crown's case included hearsay evidence - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "By a different principled exception to the exclusion of hearsay usually called the 'co-conspirator exception', evidence as to statements made by persons may be admissible, if the statements can be said to form part of overt acts or statements in service of an agreement whether or not a count of conspiracy is on trial ... The three criteria for the hearsay usage of such evidence must be strictly applied, however. That matter is not as simple as admitting the evidence of conversation between persons who might be implicated in one way or another in an overall set of events. The utterances must be shown to be made by people shown to be involved in the common agreement to effect an unlawful purpose. The utterances must be in service of the common agreement to effect an unlawful purpose. Importantly, in this instance, the Defendant must also be proven to be a knowing participant in the common agreement to effect the unlawful purpose." - See paragraphs 23 and 24.

Criminal Law - Topic 2682

Attempts, conspiracies, accessories and parties - Conspiracies - Conspirator's exception to hearsay rule - An accused was charged with fraud and attempted fraud - The Crown's case included hearsay evidence - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "In relation to 'utterance' hearsay, I can consider utterances which are after the 'main transactions' constituting the execution of the alleged agreement to the extent that the 'after' evidence is a logical and predictable extension towards the conclusion of the agreement ... However, evidence which is merely a matter of one alleged participant in a matter informing others of prior events after the conclusion of the agreement or utterances not in service of the common agreement is (in a different sense of the word) 'narrative' and not admissible under this rubric even while the conspiracy is ongoing ..." - See paragraph 28.

Criminal Law - Topic 2682

Attempts, conspiracies, accessories and parties - Conspiracies - Conspirator's exception to hearsay rule - [See second Evidence - Topic 1527 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 2742

Attempts, conspiracies, accessories and parties - Parties to offences - Necessary intention or knowledge - [See Criminal Law - Topic 2003 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 2744

Attempts, conspiracies, accessories and parties - Parties to offences - What constitutes aiding and abetting - [See Criminal Law - Topic 2003 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 2746

Attempts, conspiracies, accessories and parties - Parties to offences - What constitutes abetting - [See Criminal Law - Topic 2003 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 2747

Attempts, conspiracies, accessories and parties - Parties to offences - What constitutes a party - An accused was charged with fraud and attempted fraud - At issue, inter alia, was whether the accused was a knowing party under s. 21 of the Criminal Code as to the key events constituting the alleged frauds and attempted frauds - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "If the trier of fact is satisfied to the requisite degree that the actions of the particular Defendant were knowingly in service of the objective of the offence, did in fact assist or abet a primary actor, and were escorted by the intent of assisting that primary actor in the offence, then it would not be necessary to be also satisfied that the Defendant was personally the author of the outcome" - See paragraph 8.

Criminal Law - Topic 5252

Evidence and witnesses - Identification - From photographs - Use of photos by police - A witness identified the accused and others from police photo lineups - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "A primary objection to a lineup would be that the lineup is slanted, either clearly or with subtlety, towards a particular target person. Moreover, if the lineup itself does not have such a defect, the instructions given by the police presenter may have such a defect." - See paragraphs 278 and 279.

Criminal Law - Topic 5252

Evidence and witnesses - Identification - From photographs - Use of photos by police - The accused was charged with five counts of fraud and attempted fraud - The accused and two other individuals allegedly involved in the crimes were identified from police photo lineups - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench reviewed the photo lineups prepared by police in their investigation of this case and held that they were fair and reasonable - The court held that the common location of the three subjects in position number six in the photo lineups did not actually prejudice any of the lineups or procedures - The photo identification process did not have to be perfect - It only needed to be fair - See paragraphs 277 to 283 and 395 to 400.

Evidence - Topic 1176

Relevant facts - Relevance and materiality - Res gestae (incl. narrative) - General - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "Circumstantial evidence of the occurrence of utterances may be admissible as proof as events - such as part of a larger 'narrative' of a chronology of evidences - as opposed to being hearsay usage per se ... Narrative evidence of the non-hearsay category is not admissible for its truth as such. It takes any relevance it may have from being evidence of relevant events whether the narrative's testimonial luggage is true or not ... Of evidence of the non-hearsay narrative category, then, I must warn myself that the evidence cannot carry any greater evidential significance than as narrative of events without testimonial force ... If the events are not relevant, then the evidence has no probative force or weight as it cannot be used for a hearsay purpose without meeting the criteria for admission of hearsay evidence." - See paragraphs 20 to 22.

Evidence - Topic 1525

Hearsay rule - Hearsay rule exceptions and exclusions - General - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "As to hearsay generally, it is pertinent to note that to the extent that any such utterances are 'partial' they must be sufficiently complete or coherent or contextually set to give them real meaning ... Indeed, I would add that I generally must also vet this evidence on the principle of the balancing of probative force against prejudicial effect." - See paragraph 27.

Evidence - Topic 1527

Hearsay rule - Hearsay rule exceptions and exclusions - General - Where admission of hearsay necessary and evidence reliable - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "Ultimately, all hearsay usage of evidence must be justified under the principles in Starr [S.C.C.]. The reliability aspect largely focusses upon the circumstances of the coming into being of the hearsay evidence - Wigmore's circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness. The necessity element rests largely on adjudicative fairness considerations." - See paragraph 30.

Evidence - Topic 1527

Hearsay rule - Hearsay rule exceptions and exclusions - General - Where admission of hearsay necessary and evidence reliable - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "Both necessity and reliability are required aspects of the test for admissibility of hearsay. They are needed to adequately compensate for the sacrifice of the centuries old objections to hearsay evidence. They arise from the deficient ability to confront, to controvert (challenge or question from within) or to contradict (challenge or question from without) such evidence. The co-conspirator exception rule must meet these criteria, although the principles which guide it and on which it is based ultimately seek to do so." - See paragraph 31.

Evidence - Topic 1582

Hearsay rule - Hearsay rule exceptions and exclusions - Business records - Regular entries - Entries or records made in the regular course of a business - An accused was charged with fraud and attempted fraud - The Crown's case included hearsay evidence - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "Some of the hearsay usage evidence was documentary evidence in the nature of ordinary course records which would be admissible under ss. 29 and 30 of the Canada Evidence Act. The contents of documents shown to fit the Canada Evidence Act or Ares [S.C.C.] may be proof of their contents accurately discerned as part of the 'ordinary course' entries for such documents. There were also agreements as to facts pursuant to s. 655 of the Criminal Code as to some evidence of this type as well as other matters. Some of the documents, however, contained additional notes made at different times or for different purposes than the 'ordinary course' entries. Although I saw those additional notes, I am aware that such additional notations are not admissible aspects of the agreements of fact or of the documents." - See paragraphs 17 and 18.

Evidence - Topic 1598.1

Hearsay rule - Hearsay rule exceptions and exclusions - Business records - Particular records - Canada Post records - An accused was charged with fraud and attempted fraud - The Crown attempted to link the accused with a prepaid cell phone account - The account information indicated that the address given was 15407-124 Street - A police detective "ran this on 'the Canada Post' and it appeared to be non-existent, so he did not try to locate that address" - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that this hearsay was admissible - There was no reason to doubt the validity of the records of Canada Post - To call some official of Canada Post to verify this record was far from necessary - There was no prejudice to the accused from the lack of a Canada Post official - See paragraphs 342 to 348.

Evidence - Topic 1720

Hearsay rule - Hearsay rule exceptions and exclusions - Res gestae - Utterances as part of the issue or event - General - [See Evidence - Topic 1176 ].

Evidence - Topic 1736

Hearsay rule - Hearsay rule exceptions and exclusions - Utterances relevant as circumstantial evidence - General - [See Evidence - Topic 1176 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Dunlop and Sylvester, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 881; 27 N.R. 153; 47 C.C.C.(2d) 93; 8 C.R.(3d) 349 (Eng.); 12 C.R.(3d) 339 (Fr.); 99 D.L.R.(3d) 301; [1979] 4 W.W.R. 599; 1979 CarswellMan 158, refd to. [para. 4, footnote 1].

R. v. Suzack (C.V.) et al. (2000), 128 O.A.C. 140; 141 C.C.C.(3d) 449; 30 C.R.(5th) 346; 2000 CarswellOnt 95 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (2001), 270 N.R. 193; 150 O.A.C. 197 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 7, footnote 2].

R. v. Pennett (P.) - see R. v. Suzack (C.V.) et al.

R. v. Pangowish (S.J.) et al. (2003), 177 B.C.A.C. 219; 291 W.A.C. 219; 171 C.C.C.(3d) 506; 2003 CarswellBC 164; 2003 BCCA 62, leave to appeal refused 2003 CarswellBC 2232 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 7, footnote 3].

R. v. Greyeyes (E.R.), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 825; 214 N.R. 43; 152 Sask.R. 294; 140 W.A.C. 294; 116 C.C.C.(3d) 334; [1997] 7 W.W.R. 426; 8 C.R.(5th) 198; 1997 CarswellSask 271, refd to. [para. 8, footnote 4].

R. v. Thatcher, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 652; 75 N.R. 198; 57 Sask.R. 113; [1987] 4 W.W.R. 193; 57 C.R.(3d) 97; 32 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 39 D.L.R.(4th) 275; 1987 CarswellSask 338, refd to. [para. 8, footnote 5].

R. v. Dixon (S.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 244; 222 N.R. 243; 166 N.S.R.(2d) 241; 498 A.P.R. 241; 122 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 13 C.R.(5th) 217; 50 C.R.R.(2d) 208, refd to. [para. 8, footnote 6].

R. v. Smith (C.J.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 291; 222 N.R. 327; 165 N.S.R.(2d) 163; 495 A.P.R. 163; 122 C.C.C.(3d) 27, refd to. [para. 8, footnote 6].

R. v. Skinner (S.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 298; 222 N.R. 228; 165 N.S.R.(2d) 145; 495 A.P.R. 145; 122 C.C.C.(3d) 31, refd to. [para. 8, footnote 6].

R. v. Robart (G.L.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 279; 222 N.R. 321; 165 N.S.R.(2d) 171; 495 A.P.R. 171; 122 C.C.C.(3d) 36, refd to. [para. 8, footnote 6].

R. v. McQuaid (H.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 285; 222 N.R. 236; 165 N.S.R.(2d) 153; 495 A.P.R. 153; 122 C.C.C.(3d) 40; 1998 CarswellNS 16, refd to. [para. 8, footnote 6].

R. v. Handy (J.), [2002] 2 S.C.R. 908; 290 N.R. 1; 160 O.A.C. 201; 164 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 213 D.L.R.(4th) 385; 2002 CarswellOnt 1968; 2002 SCC 56, refd to. [para. 10, footnote 8].

R. v. Cooper, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 860; 14 N.R. 181; 34 C.C.C.(2d) 18; 37 C.R.N.S. 1; 74 D.L.R.(3d) 731; 1977 CarswellOnt 10, refd to. [para. 11, footnote 9].

R. v. Morin, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 345; 88 N.R. 161; 30 O.A.C. 81; 44 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 66 C.R.(3d) 1; 1988 CarswellOnt 967, refd to. [para. 12, footnote 10].

Ares v. Venner, [1970] S.C.R. 608; 73 W.W.R.(N.S.) 347; 14 D.L.R.(3d) 4; 12 C.R.N.S. 349; 1970 CarswellAlta 80, refd to. [para. 17, footnote 11].

Subramaniam v. Public Prosecutor, [1956] 1 W.L.R. 96; 100 S.J. 566; 1956 WL 53728 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 21, footnote 12].

R. v. Smith (A.L.), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 915; 139 N.R. 323; 55 O.A.C. 321; 75 C.C.C.(3d) 257; 15 C.R.(4th) 133; 94 D.L.R.(4th) 590; 1992 CarswellOnt 103, refd to. [para. 21, footnote 13].

R. v. Chase (J.A.) (1998), 212 A.R. 54; 168 W.A.C. 54 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22, footnote 14].

R. v. E.E.H. (1999), 244 A.R. 326; 209 W.A.C. 326 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22, footnote 15].

R. v. Lance (E.A.), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 658; 248 N.R. 1; 127 O.A.C. 105; 139 C.C.C.(3d) 227; 1999 CarswellOnt 3125; 1999 CarswellOnt 3126, refd to. [para. 22, footnote 16].

R. v. Koufis, [1941] S.C.R. 481; 76 C.C.C. 161; [1941] D.L.R. 657, refd to. [para. 23, footnote 17].

R. v. Carter, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 938; 47 N.R. 288; 46 N.B.R.(2d) 142; 121 A.P.R. 142; 67 C.C.C.(2d) 568; 137 D.L.R.(3d) 385; 31 C.R.(3d) 97; 1982 CarswellNB 13, refd to. [para. 23, footnote 18].

R. v. Lord (D.C.), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 747; 178 N.R. 152; 53 B.C.A.C. 243; 87 W.A.C. 243; 26 W.C.B.(2d) 104; 1995 CarswellBC 642, refd to. [para. 23, footnote 19].

R. v. Sutton (K.M.), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 595; 262 N.R. 384; 230 N.B.R.(2d) 205; 593 A.P.R. 205; 148 C.C.C.(3d) 513; 38 C.R.(5th) 39; 192 D.L.R.(4th) 411; 2000 CarswellNB 406; 2000 SCC 50, refd to. [para. 23, footnote 20].

R. v. Ferris (J.M.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 756; 174 N.R. 158; 162 A.R. 108; 83 W.A.C. 108; 34 C.R.(4th) 26; 1994 CarswellAlta 750, refd to. [para. 27, footnote 21].

R. v. Baron (M.) et al. (1976), 31 C.C.C.(2d) 525; 14 O.R.(2d) 173; 73 D.L.R.(3d) 213; 1976 CarswellOnt 530 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28, footnote 22].

R. v. Chang (A.) and Kullman (G.) (2003), 170 O.A.C. 37; 9 C.R.(6th) 304; 2003 CarswellOnt 1007 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28, footnote 23].

R. v. Starr (R.D.), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 144; 258 N.R. 250; 148 Man.R.(2d) 161; 224 W.A.C. 161; 147 C.C.C.(3d) 449; 36 C.R.(5th) 1; 190 D.L.R.(4th) 591; [2000] 11 W.W.R. 1; 2000 CarswellMan 449; 2000 SCC 40, appld. [para. 30, footnote 24].

R. v. Arp (B.), [1998] 3 S.C.R. 339; 232 N.R. 317; 114 B.C.A.C. 1; 186 W.A.C. 1; 166 D.L.R.(4th) 296; 129 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 20 C.R.(5th) 1; [1999] 5 W.W.R. 545; 58 B.C.L.R.(3d) 18; 1998 CarswellBC 2545, refd to. [para. 36, footnote 26].

R. v. Jolivet (D.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 751; 254 N.R. 1; 144 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 33 C.R.(5th) 1; 185 D.L.R.(4th) 626; 2000 CarswellQue 805, appld. [para. 37, footnote 27].

R. v. Lifchus (W.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320; 216 N.R. 215; 118 Man.R.(2d) 218; 149 W.A.C. 218; 118 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 9 C.R.(5th) 1; [1997] 10 W.W.R. 570; 1997 CarswellMan 393, refd to. [para. 38, footnote 28].

R. v. Noble (S.J.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 874; 210 N.R. 321; 89 B.C.A.C. 1; 145 W.A.C. 1; 114 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 6 C.R.(5th) 1; [1997] 6 W.W.R. 1; 1997 CarswellBC 711, refd to. [para. 39, footnote 29].

R. v. Chaplin (D.A.) et al., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 727; 178 N.R. 118; 162 A.R. 272; 83 W.A.C. 272; 96 C.C.C.(3d) 225; 36 C.R.(4th) 201; 27 Alta. L.R.(3d) 1; 26 C.R.R.(2d) 189; 1995 CarswellAlta 408, refd to. [para. 52, footnote 30].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. New Brunswick (Attorney General), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 480; 203 N.R. 169; 182 N.B.R.(2d) 81; 463 A.P.R. 81; 110 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 2 C.R.(5th) 1; 139 D.L.R.(4th) 385; 39 C.R.R.(2d) 189; 1996 CarswellNB 463, refd to. [para. 52, footnote 31].

R. v. King (D.G.) (2003), 338 A.R. 332; 2003 CarswellAlta 704; 2003 ABQB 452, refd to. [para. 53, footnote 32].

R. v. Nguyen (S.V.) (2001), 281 A.R. 91; 248 W.A.C. 91; 42 C.R.(5th) 35; 2001 ABCA 98, refd to. [para. 216, footnote 33].

R. v. Ratten, [1972] A.C. 378; [1971] 3 W.L.R. 930; [1971] 3 All E.R. 801 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 277, footnote 34].

R. v. Swanston, [1982] 2 W.W.R. 546; 65 C.C.C.(2d) 453; 25 C.R.(3d) 385; 33 B.C.L.R. 391 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 277, footnote 35].

R. v. Langille (1990), 40 O.A.C. 355; 59 C.C.C.(3d) 544; 75 O.R.(2d) 65; 1990 CarswellOnt 1085 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 277, footnote 36].

R. v. Jones (T.J.) (1988), 29 O.A.C. 219; 66 C.R.(3d) 54; 44 C.C.C.(3d) 248; 1988 CarswellOnt 84 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 277, footnote 36].

R. v. Nenadic (M.) et al. (1997), 88 B.C.A.C. 81; 144 W.A.C. 81 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1997), 224 N.R. 158; 95 B.C.A.C. 240; 154 W.A.C. 240 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 277, footnote 37].

R. v. Biddle (E.R.), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 761; 178 N.R. 208; 79 O.A.C. 128; 96 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 36 C.R.(4th) 323; 123 D.L.R.(4th) 22, refd to. [para. 280, footnote 38].

R. v. Leaney and Rawlinson, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 393; 99 N.R. 345; 99 A.R. 291; 50 C.C.C.(3d) 289; [1989] 6 W.W.R. 332; 69 Alta. L.R.(2d) 1; 71 C.R.(3d) 325, refd to. [para. 281, footnote 39].

R. v. Nikolovski (A.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1197; 204 N.R. 333; 96 O.A.C. 1; 111 C.C.C.(3d) 403; 3 C.R.(5th) 362; 31 O.R.(3d) 480; 141 D.L.R.(4th) 647; 1996 CarswellOnt 4425, refd to. [para. 281, footnote 40].

R. v. Harvey (A.W.) (2002), 313 N.R. 190; 180 O.A.C. 254; 169 C.C.C.(3d) 576; 7 C.R.(6th) 1; 2002 CarswellOnt 4210 (S.C.C.), affing. (2001), 152 O.A.C. 162; 160 C.C.C.(3d) 52; 48 C.R.(5th) 247 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 283, footnote 41].

R. v. Miaponoose (A.) (1996), 93 O.A.C. 115; 30 O.R.(3d) 419; 110 C.C.C.(3d) 445; 2 C.R.(5th) 82; 1996 CarswellOnt 3386, refd to. [para. 283, footnote 42].

R. v. Hibbert (K.R.), [2002] 2 S.C.R. 445; 287 N.R. 111; 165 B.C.A.C. 161; 270 W.A.C. 161; 163 C.C.C.(3d) 129; 50 C.R.(5th) 209; 211 D.L.R.(4th) 223; 2002 CarswellBC 847; 2002 SCC 39, refd to. [para. 283, footnote 43].

R. v. T.T. and S.L. (1997), 103 O.A.C. 15; 117 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 35 O.R.(3d) 641; 14 C.R.(5th) 116; 1997 CarswellOnt 5434 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 284, footnote 45].

R. v. K.G.B., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 740; 148 N.R. 241; 61 O.A.C. 1; 79 C.C.C.(3d) 257; 19 C.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 373, footnote 46].

R. v. Arcangioli (G.), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 129; 162 N.R. 280; 69 O.A.C. 26; 87 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 27 C.R.(4th) 1; 1994 CarswellOnt 1151, refd to. [para. 402, footnote 47].

R. v. White (R.G.) and Côté (Y.), [1998] 2 S.C.R. 72; 227 N.R. 326; 112 O.A.C. 1; 125 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 16 C.R.(5th) 199; 1998 CarswellOnt 2562, refd to. [para. 402, footnote 48].

R. v. Théroux (R.), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 5; 151 N.R. 104; 54 Q.A.C. 184; 79 C.C.C.(3d) 449; 19 C.R.(4th) 194; 100 D.L.R.(4th) 624; 1993 CarswellQue 5, appld. [para. 413, footnote 49].

R. v. Zlatic (Z.), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 29; 151 N.R. 81; 54 Q.A.C. 161; 79 C.C.C.(3d) 466; 19 C.R.(4th) 230; 100 D.L.R.(4th) 642, appld. [para. 413, footnote 50].

R. v. Olan, Hudson and Hartnett, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1175; 21 N.R. 504; 41 C.C.C.(2d) 145; 5 C.R.(3d) 1; 86 D.L.R.(3d) 212; 1978 CarswellOnt 49, refd to. [para. 413, footnote 52].

R. v. Detering, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 583; 45 N.R. 91; 70 C.C.C.(2d) 321; 31 C.R.(3d) 354; 142 D.L.R.(3d) 87; 1982 CarswellOnt 102, refd to. [para. 419, footnote 53].

United States of America et al. v. Dynar, [1997] 2 S.C.R. 462; 213 N.R. 321; 101 O.A.C. 321; 115 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 147 D.L.R.(4th) 399; 8 C.R.(5th) 79; 44 C.R.R.(2d) 189; 1997 CarswellOnt 1982, refd to. [para. 419, footnote 54].

R. v. Côté and Vézina, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 2; 64 N.R. 93; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 49 C.R.(3d) 351; 25 D.L.R.(4th) 82; 1986 CarswellQue 4, refd to. [para. 480, footnote 55].

R. v. Deutsch, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 2; 68 N.R. 321; 18 O.A.C. 1; 27 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 52 C.R.(3d) 305; 30 D.L.R.(4th) 435; 1986 CarswellOnt 120, refd to. [para. 483, footnote 56].

R. v. Dungey (1979), 51 C.C.C.(2d) 86; 1979 CarswellOnt 1412 (C.A.), dist. [para. 483, footnote 57].

R. v. Cline, [1956] O.R. 539; 24 C.R. 58; 115 C.C.C. 18; 3 D.L.R.(2d) 480 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 483, footnote 58].

Duels Case, Re (1615), 2 State Trials 1033, refd to. [para. 489, footnote 59].

R. v. Scofield (1784), Cald. Mag. Rep. 397, refd to. [para. 491, footnote 60].

R. v. Ancio, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 225; 52 N.R. 161; 2 O.A.C. 124; 10 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 39 C.R.(3d) 1; 6 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 1984 CarswellOnt 41, refd to. [para. 491, footnote 61].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Cory, Peter DeC., The Inquiry Regarding Thomas Sophonow: Prosecution and Consideration of Entitlement to Compensation (2001), generally [para. 283, footnote 44].

Morgan, Edmund M., Hearsay Dangers and the Application of the Hearsay Concept (1948), 62 Harvard Law Rev. 177, generally [para. 31, footnote 25].

Counsel:

Sheila Brown, for the Crown;

Charles B. Davison (Abbey, Davison & Company), for the accused.

This case was heard on September 22-26, 29, 30, October 1-3, 6, 9 and 20, 2003, by Watson, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following decision on October 20, 2003.