R. v. Ticknovich (N.M.), 2003 ABQB 597

• Judge: Watson, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: July 03, 2003
• Citations: 2003 ABQB 597;(2003), 353 A.R. 8 (QB)

R. v. Ticknovich (N.M.) (2003), 353 A.R. 8 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] A.R. TBEd. MR.122

Her Majesty the Queen v. Nicole Marie Ticknovich

(0172 99199 Q1; 2003 ABQB 597)

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

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Watson, J.

July 7, 2003.

Summary:

The accused faced trial by judge and jury upon a 32 count indictment. Although there was some evidence in common between the counts, the Crown evidence said to support the counts could be grouped into four categories. The accused sought an order under s. 591 of the Criminal Code severing her trial into four trials associated with those categories.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench ordered that the accused be tried in two trials, one consisting of a trial on counts 1, 2, 11, 12 and 13, and the other consisting of a trial on the rest of the counts.

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 - The accused sought to sever a 32 count indictment into four trials - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the question of delay of a later trial was a factor touching on prejudice to a defendant which was relevant to a severance decision - However, "the possibility that the defendant might have to wait a reasonable time for a later trial would not be a serious infringement of s. 11(b) of the Charter by itself because it would be a 'neutral' delay within the meaning of Sapara [R. v. Sapara (J.) (C.A.), leave to appeal denied (S.C.C.)]" - See paragraph 89.

Criminal Law - Topic 4737.1

Procedure - Information or indictment - Charge or count - Indictable offences - Severing counts in an indictment - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3270 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4737.1

Procedure - Information or indictment - Charge or count - Indictable offences - Severing counts in an indictment - The accused faced trial by judge and jury upon a 32 count indictment alleging offences between January and August of 2001 - Although there was some evidence in common between the counts, the Crown evidence said to support the counts could be grouped into four categories alleging, inter alia, 1) fraud and attempted fraud respecting a theatre society, 2) possession or use of credit cards belonging to others, 3) fraud and uttering a forged land transfer in relation to a land transaction and mortgage and 4) theft by diversion of her estranged husband's mail and fraud upon various businesses - The accused sought an order severing her trial into four trials associated with those categories - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench ordered that the accused be tried in two trials, one on the counts in categories 1 and 3, and the other on the remaining counts.

Criminal Law - Topic 4737.1

Procedure - Information or indictment - Charge or count - Indictable offences - Severing counts in an indictment - The accused faced trial by judge and jury upon a 32 count indictment - The accused sought an order under s. 591 of the Criminal Code severing her trial into four trials -The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench reviewed the law respecting severance of trials - See paragraphs 32 to 61.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Litchfield, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 333; 161 N.R. 161; 145 A.R. 321; 55 W.A.C. 321; 86 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 14 Alta. L.R.(3d) 1; 25 C.R.(4th) 137, refd to. [para. 3, footnote 1].

R. v. Ng (K.-F.) (2003), 327 A.R. 215; 296 W.A.C. 215; 2003 ABCA 1, refd to. [para. 4, footnote 2].

R. v. Neil (D.L.), [2003] 2 W.W.R. 591; 294 N.R. 201; 317 A.R. 73; 284 W.A.C. 73; 168 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 218 D.L.R.(4th) 671; 6 C.R.(6th) 1; 6 Alta. L.R.(4th) 1; 2002 CarswellAlta 1301; 2002 SCC 70, refd to. [para. 6, footnote 3].

R. v. Lee (S.T.) - see R. v. Wu (J.J.) et al.

R. v. Wu (J.J.) et al. (2002), 167 O.A.C. 141; 170 C.C.C.(3d) 225 (C.A.), affing. (1999), 107 O.T.C. 275 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 7, footnote 4].

R. v. Darrach (A.S.), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 443; 259 N.R. 336; 137 O.A.C. 91; 148 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 191 D.L.R.(4th) 539; 36 C.R.(5th) 223; 78 C.R.R.(2d) 53; 2000 SCC 46, refd to. [para. 7, footnote 5].

R. v. Duhamel, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 555; 57 N.R. 162; 57 A.R. 204; 15 C.C.C.(3d) 491; [1985] 2 W.W.R. 251; 14 D.L.R.(4th) 92; 43 C.R.(3d) 1; 35 Alta. L.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 8, footnote 6].

Coggs v. Bernard (1703), 2 Ld. Raym. 909; 92 E.R. 107, refd to. [para. 8, footnote 7].

Chartwell Shipping Ltd. v. Q.N.S. Paper Co., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 683; 101 N.R. 1; 26 Q.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 8, footnote 7].

R. v. Clunas, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 595; 134 N.R. 268; 52 O.A.C. 130; 70 C.C.C.(3d) 115; 11 C.R.(4th) 238, refd to. [para. 33, footnote 8].

R. v. M.O.B. (1998), 104 B.C.A.C. 279; 170 W.A.C. 279; 123 C.C.C.(3d) 270 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35, footnote 9].

R. v. McNamara et al. (No. 1) - see R. v. Canadian Dredge & Dock Co., Marine Industries Ltd., Porter (J.P.) Co. and Richelieu Dredging Corp.

R. v. Canadian Dredge & Dock Co., Marine Industries Ltd., Porter (J.P.) Co. and Richelieu Dredging Corp. (1981), 56 C.C.C.(2d) 193 (C.A.), leave to appeal granted (1981), 37 N.R. 83; 56 C.C.C.(2d) 576 (S.C.C.), affd. [1985] 1 S.C.R. 662; 59 N.R. 241; 9 O.A.C. 321; 45 C.R.(3d) 289; 19 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 19 D.L.R.(4th) 314, refd to. [para. 35, footnote 9].

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; 129 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 20 C.R.(5th) 1; [1999] 5 W.W.R. 545, refd to. [para. 35, footnote 10].

R. v. S.H.M., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 446; 100 N.R. 1; 100 A.R. 321; 50 C.C.C.(3d) 503; [1989] 6 W.W.R. 385; 71 C.R.(3d) 257; 69 Alta. L.R.(2d) 209, refd to. [para. 38, footnote 12].

R. v. Cross (R.) (1996), 112 C.C.C.(3d) 410 (Que. C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1997), 215 N.R. 160; 114 C.C.C.(3d) vi (S.C.C.), consd. [para. 40, footnote 13].

R. v. Cuthbert (D.A.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 8; 208 N.R. 303; 86 B.C.A.C. 81; 142 W.A.C. 81; 112 C.C.C.(3d) 96; 5 C.R.(5th) 362, appld. [para. 41, footnote 14].

R. v. Mills (B.J.), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 668; 248 N.R. 101; 244 A.R. 201; 209 W.A.C. 201; 139 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 28 C.R.(5th) 207; [2000] 2 W.W.R. 180; 75 Alta. L.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 42, footnote 15].

R. v. Lyons, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 309; 80 N.R. 161; 82 N.S.R.(2d) 271; 207 A.P.R. 271; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 61 C.R.(3d) 1; 44 D.L.R.(4th) 193; 32 C.R.R. 41, refd to. [para. 42, footnote 16].

Cunningham v. Canada, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 143; 151 N.R. 161; 62 O.A.C. 243; 11 Admin. L.R.(2d) 1; 80 C.C.C.(3d) 492; 20 C.R.(4th) 57; 14 C.R.R.(2d) 234, refd to. [para. 42, footnote 17].

R. v. O'Connor (H.P.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 411; 191 N.R. 1; 68 B.C.A.C. 1; 112 W.A.C. 1; [1996] 2 W.W.R. 153; 130 D.L.R.(4th) 235; 103 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 44 C.R.(4th) 1; 29 W.C.B.(2d) 152; 33 C.R.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 42, footnote 18].

R. v. Grimes (D.W.) (1998), 209 A.R. 360; 160 W.A.C. 360; 122 C.C.C.(3d) 331; 59 Alta. L.R.(3d) 210; 49 C.R.R.(2d) 308 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 42, footnote 19].

R. v. Leary, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 29; 13 N.R. 592; 37 C.R.N.S. 60; [1977] 2 W.W.R. 628; 33 C.C.C.(2d) 473; 74 D.L.R.(3d) 103, refd to. [para. 44, footnote 20].

R. v. D.O.L., [1993] 4 S.C.R. 419; 161 N.R. 1; 88 Man.R.(2d) 241; 51 W.A.C. 241; 85 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 18 C.R.R.(2d) 257; 25 C.R.(4th) 285, refd to. [para. 44, footnote 21].

R. v. Handy (J.) (2002), 290 N.R. 1; 160 O.A.C. 201; 164 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 213 D.L.R.(4th) 385; 2002 SCC 56, refd to. [para. 49, footnote 22].

R. v. Shearing (I.), [2002] 8 W.W.R. 395; 290 N.R. 225; 168 B.C.A.C. 161; 275 W.A.C. 161; 214 D.L.R.(4th) 215; 26 C.R.(6th) 213; 2002 SCC 58, refd to. [para. 49, footnote 23].

R. v. C.D.R. (1995), 178 A.R. 94; 110 W.A.C. 94 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 50, footnote 24].

R. v. R.R.I., [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1124; 204 N.R. 371; 83 B.C.A.C. 83; 136 W.A.C. 83; 112 C.C.C.(3d) 367; 3 C.R.(5th) 136, affing. [1996] B.C.D. Crim. Conv. 5980-02; 67 B.C.A.C. 137; 111 W.A.C. 137 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 51, footnote 25].

R. v. Rarru (H.S.) (No. 3), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 165; 197 N.R. 310; 77 B.C.A.C. 14; 126 W.A.C. 14; 107 C.C.C.(3d) 53, reving. (1995), 62 B.C.A.C. 81; 103 W.A.C. 81 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 51, footnote 26].

R. v. Page (J.), [2002] O.A.C. Uned. 7 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 51, footnote 27].

R. v. Mezzo, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 802; 68 N.R. 1; 43 Man.R.(2d) 161; [1986] 4 W.W.R. 577; 30 D.L.R.(4th) 161; 27 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 52 C.R.(3d) 113, refd to. [para. 52, footnote 28].

R. v. Corbett, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 670; 85 N.R. 81; 64 C.R.(3d) 1; 41 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 28 B.C.L.R.(2d) 145; [1988] 4 W.W.R. 481; 34 C.R.R. 54, refd to. [para. 52, footnote 29].

R. v. Crawford (C.) - see R. v. Creighton (D.J.) and Crawford (C.).

R. v. Creighton (D.J.) and Crawford (C.), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 858; 179 N.R. 161; 81 O.A.C. 359; 96 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 37 C.R.(4th) 197, refd to. [para. 52, footnote 30].

R. v. Wells (M.E.G.) (2001), 139 O.A.C. 356 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (2001), 284 N.R. 398; 160 O.A.C. 199 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 54, footnote 31].

R. v. E.S. (2000), 129 O.A.C. 146 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 54, footnote 32].

R. v. Richards (L.), [2001] O.A.C. Uned. 133 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 54, footnote 33].

R. v. H., [1995] 2 A.C. 596; 185 N.R. 21; [1995] 2 W.L.R. 737; [1995] 2 All E.R. 865; [1995] 2 Cr. App. R. 437 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 55, footnote 34].

R. v. Burke (J.) (No. 3), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 474; 194 N.R. 247; 139 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 147; 433 A.P.R. 147; 46 C.R.(4th) 195; 105 C.C.C.(3d) 205, refd to. [para. 56, footnote 35].

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; 190 D.L.R.(4th) 591; 36 C.R.(5th) 1; [2000] 11 W.W.R. 1; 2000 SCC 40, refd to. [para. 57, footnote 36].

R. v. J.-L.J., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 600; 261 N.R. 111; 148 C.C.C.(3d) 487; 192 D.L.R.(4th) 416; 2000 SCC 51, refd to. [para. 57, footnote 37].

R. v. Giroux (C.D.) (2002), 318 A.R. 201; 2002 ABQB 532, refd to. [para. 61, footnote 39].

R. v. Underwood (G.R.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 77; 221 N.R. 161; 209 A.R. 276; 160 W.A.C. 276; 121 C.C.C.(3d) 117; 115 D.L.R.(4th) 13; 12 C.R.(5th) 241; [1999] 4 W.W.R. 326, refd to. [para. 63, footnote 40].

R. v. Jefferson et al. (1971), 6 C.C.C.(2d) 35 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 68, footnote 41].

R. v. Shrubsall (W.C.) (2000), 186 N.S.R.(2d) 38; 581 A.P.R. 38 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 69, footnote 42].

R. v. Kienapple, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729; 1 N.R. 322; 26 C.R.N.S. 1; 15 C.C.C.(2d) 524; 44 D.L.R.(3d) 351, refd to. [para. 71, footnote 43].

R. v. Prince, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 480; 70 N.R. 119; 45 Man.R.(2d) 93; 54 C.R.(3d) 97; [1987] 1 W.W.R. 1; 33 D.L.R.(4th) 724; 30 C.C.C.(3d) 35, refd to. [para. 71, footnote 44].

R. v. Grdic, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 810; 59 N.R. 61; 19 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 46 C.R.(3d) 1; [1985] 4 W.W.R. 337; 19 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 71, footnote 45].

R. v. Sillipp (E.F.), [1998] 2 W.W.R. 653; 209 A.R. 253; 160 W.A.C. 253; 120 C.C.C.(3d) 384; 11 C.R.(5th) 71 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1998), 228 N.R. 195; 219 A.R. 107; 179 W.A.C. 107 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 71, footnote 46].

R. v. Koury, [1964] S.C.R. 212; 42 C.R. 210; [1964] 2 C.C.C. 97; 43 D.L.R.(2d) 637, refd to. [para. 71, footnote 47].

R. v. F.F.B., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 697; 148 N.R. 161; 120 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 332 A.P.R. 1; 79 C.C.C.(3d) 112; 18 C.R.(4th) 261, refd to. [para. 77, footnote 48].

R. v. A.J., 2001 ABQB 492, refd to. [para. 83, footnote 49].

R. v. Kotyk (M.A.), [2003] A.W.L.D. 190; 329 A.R. 138; 2003 CarswellAlta 25; 2003 ABQB 25, refd to. [para. 83, footnote 50].

R. v. Sapara (J.), [2001] 6 W.W.R. 459; 277 A.R. 357; 242 W.A.C. 357; 41 C.R.(5th) 356; 91 Alta. L.R.(3d) 28; 81 C.R.R.(2d) 356; 2001 ABCA 59, leave to appeal refused (2001), 275 N.R. 187; 293 A.R. 291; 257 W.A.C. 291 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 89, footnote 51].

Westray - see Phillips et al. v. Richard, J.

United Steelworkers of America, Local 9332 and Richard, J. v. Phillips et al. - see Phillips et al. v. Richard, J.

Phillips et al. v. Richard, J., [1995] 2 S.C.R. 97; 180 N.R. 1; 141 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 403 A.P.R. 1; 39 C.R.(4th) 141; 98 C.C.C.(3d) 20; 28 C.R.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 90, footnote 52].

Swain v. Ontario (Attorney General) - see R. v. Swain.

R. v. Swain, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 933; 125 N.R. 1; 47 O.A.C. 81; 5 C.R.(4th) 253; 3 C.R.R.(2d) 1; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 12 W.C.B.(2d) 582, refd to. [para. 99, footnote 53].

R. v. Mousseau (T.M.) (2002), 309 A.R. 255; 2002 ABQB 191, refd to. [para. 100, footnote 54].

R. v. Bull (F.G.) (2001), 147 B.C.A.C. 274; 241 W.A.C. 274; 2001 BCCA 21, refd to. [para. 100, footnote 55].

R. v. McMath (P.D.) (1997), 100 B.C.A.C. 64; 163 W.A.C. 64; 121 C.C.C.(3d) 174 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 100, footnote 56].

R. v. Papequash (1987), 61 Sask.R. 222; 3 W.C.B.(2d) 289 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 100, footnote 57].

R. v. Welyki (1975), 26 C.C.C.(2d) 284 (Alta. T.D.), refd to. [para. 100, footnote 58].

R. v. Egoroff (P.F.) (1999), 237 A.R. 181; 197 W.A.C. 181; 1999 ABCA 210, refd to. [para. 100, footnote 59].

R. v. Noël (C.) (2002), 295 N.R. 1; 168 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 218 D.L.R.(4th) 385; 5 C.R.(6th) 1; 2002 SCC 67, refd to. [para. 102, footnote 60].

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, refd to. [para. 103, footnote 61].

United States v. Arvizu (R.) (2002), 534 U.S. 266 (U.S.S.C.), refd to. [para. 103, footnote 62].

Attorney General v. Hitchcock (1847), 1 Exch. 91; 154 E.R. 38 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 104, footnote 63].

R. v. M.B.P., [1994] 1 S.C.R. 555; 165 N.R. 321; 70 O.A.C. 161; 113 D.L.R.(4th) 461; 89 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 29 C.R.(4th) 209; 21 C.R.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 105, footnote 64].

R. v. White (J.K.), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 417; 240 N.R. 1; 123 B.C.A.C. 161; 201 W.A.C. 161; 24 C.R.(5th) 201; 42 M.V.R.(3d) 161; 174 D.L.R.(4th) 111, refd to. [para. 105, footnote 65].

R. v. Proudlock, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 525; 24 N.R. 199; [1978] 6 W.W.R. 357; 5 C.R.(3d) 21; 91 D.L.R.(3d) 449; 43 C.C.C.(3d) 321, refd to. [para. 106, footnote 66].

R. v. Lepage (J.P.), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 654; 178 N.R. 81; 79 O.A.C. 191; 95 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 36 C.R.(4th) 145, refd to. [para. 106, footnote 67].

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; 146 D.L.R.(4th) 385; 114 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 6 C.R.(5th) 1; [1997] 6 W.W.R. 1, refd to. [para. 106, footnote 68].

R. v. Mathieu (P.J.) (1996), 187 A.R. 351; 127 W.A.C. 351; 111 C.C.C.(3d) 291 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1997), 216 N.R. 239; 212 A.R. 21; 168 W.A.C. 21; 114 C.C.C.(3d) 291 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 106, footnote 69].

R. v. Charland (D.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1006; 221 N.R. 76; 209 A.R. 161; 160 W.A.C. 161; 120 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 12 C.R.(5th) 227, affing. (1996), 187 A.R. 161; 127 W.A.C. 161; 110 C.C.C.(3d) 300; 2 C.R.(5th) 318, refd to. [para. 107, footnote 70].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Ewaschuk, E.G., Criminal Pleadings and Practice in Canada (2nd Ed.) (2001 Looseleaf), pp. 9-67, 9-68 [para. 60, footnote 38].

Counsel:

Sheila Brown, for the Crown;

Charles Davison, for the defendant.

This application was heard on July 3, 2003, by Watson, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following decision on July 7, 2003, subject to a publication ban. Watson, J., issued a corrigendum on March 3, 2004, indicating that the publication ban had expired.