R. v. Trang (D.) et al., 2003 ABQB 48

• Judge: Binder, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: January 20, 2003
• Citations: 2003 ABQB 48;(2003), 334 A.R. 122 (QB)

R. v. Trang (D.) (2003), 334 A.R. 122 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] A.R. TBEd. JA.116

Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) v. De Trang, Tuan Quoc Trang, Binh Quoc Trang, Cuong Quoc Trang, Thao Mai Dao, Phuc Canh Truong, Vi Quoc Tang, Joseph Vincent Kochan (applicants)

(Action No. 016233983Q1; 2003 ABQB 48)

Indexed As: R. v. Trang (D.) et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Binder, J.

January 20, 2003.

Summary:

Several accused applied to cross-examine affiants of affidavits filed in support of wiretap authorizations. Pursuant to a court order, the accused filed notices of motion and briefs setting out the legal and factual basis for permitting the cross-examination. Subsequently, the accused sought clarification of the order.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench clarified the order and provided guidance for compliance. The court granted the accused leave to file amended notices and briefs.

Criminal Law - Topic 5274.3

Evidence and witnesses - Interception of private communications - Application for -Affidavit - Examination or cross-examination of deponent - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that cross-examination on affidavits filed in support of wiretap authorizations was not an absolute right - The application to cross-examine was made in the context of a Charter challenge to the authorization and its implementation and was governed by Charter procedures and requirements - Although the court had discretion to determine a procedure which would best afford an accused adjudicative fairness, the burden rested on the accused - A factual basis was necessary to support the application - A court could require a detailed notice, including a summary of the evidence to be relied on - In some cases, the affidavit itself would suffice - An accused was not required to go through every piece of evidence he wished to put before an affiant - However, if the accused failed to present at a minimum some factual basis to satisfy that cross-examination was warranted, he risked having the request denied - Also, the court might restrict the areas and scope within which defence counsel could cross-examine - Therefore, limiting the factual basis presented could result in unnecessarily restricted cross-examination and lengthy legal debate during cross-examination.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Sapara, [2002] A.J. No. 483 (Q.B.), refd to. [paras. 6, 32].

R. v. Garofoli et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1421; 116 N.R. 241; 43 O.A.C. 1; 36 Q.A.C. 161, refd to. [paras. 6, 12].

R. v. Feldman (A.F.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 832; 178 N.R. 140; 53 B.C.A.C. 158; 87 W.A.C. 158, affing. (1994), 42 B.C.A.C. 31; 67 W.A.C. 31 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 6, 15].

R. v. Todoruk (1992), 78 C.C.C.(3d) 139 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Lachance, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1490; 116 N.R. 325; 43 O.A.C. 241; 36 Q.A.C. 243; 60 C.C.C.(3d) 449, refd to. [paras. 6, 8, 23].

R. v. Hiscock (G.); R. v. Sauvé (P.) (1991), 51 Q.A.C. 304; 68 C.C.C.(3d) 182 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Land (1990), 55 C.C.C.(3d) 382 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Dawson (W.) et al. (1998), 107 O.A.C. 375; 123 C.C.C.(3d) 385 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Dellapenna (R.N.) (1995), 62 B.C.A.C. 32; 103 W.A.C. 32 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Sismey (1990), 55 C.C.C.(3d) 281 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [paras. 6, 23].

R. v. Donaldson (1990), 58 C.C.C.(3d) 294 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [paras. 6, 23].

R. v. Monroe (D.T.) (1997), 90 B.C.A.C. 256; 147 W.A.C. 256 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Innocente et al. (1992), 113 N.S.R.(2d) 256; 309 A.P.R. 256 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Heikel et al. (No. 3) (1990), 110 A.R. 161 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Farinacci - see R. v. Durette et al.

R. v. Durette et al., [1994] 1 S.C.R. 469; 163 N.R. 321; 70 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Grant (D.), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 223; 159 N.R. 161; 35 B.C.A.C. 1; 57 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [paras. 6, 23].

R. v. Rendon (1999), 140 C.C.C.(3d) 12 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Silvini (A.) (1997), 96 O.A.C. 310 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Dwernychuk (M.K.) (1992), 135 A.R. 31; 33 W.A.C. 31 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 6, 15].

R. v. Kutynec (1992), 52 O.A.C. 59; 70 C.C.C.(3d) 289 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 6, 18].

R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276, refd to. [para. 6].

Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291, refd [para. 6].

Plumrose Inc. v. A. & A. Foods Ltd. (1994), 32 C.P.C.(3d) 230 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Thompson et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1111; 114 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Araujo (A.) et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 992; 262 N.R. 364; 143 B.C.A.C. 257; 235 W.A.C. 257, refd to. [paras. 7, 23].

R. v. Parmar (1987), 37 C.C.C.(3d) 300 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Kutynec (1992), 52 O.A.C. 59; 70 C.C.C.(3d) 289 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Cheung (Y.W.) (1997), 97 B.C.A.C. 161; 157 W.A.C. 161; 119 C.C.C.(3d) 507 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Ambrose (M.C.) et al. (1994), 73 O.A.C. 135 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Starr (R.D.) (1998), 123 Man.R.(2d) 292; 159 W.A.C. 292; 123 C.C.C.(3d) 145 (C.A.), revd. [2000] 2 S.C.R. 144; 258 N.R. 250; 148 Man.R.(2d) 161; 224 W.A.C. 16, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Washington (G.W.) et al. (1997), 104 O.A.C. 210 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 7, 33].

R. v. Durette et al. (1992), 54 O.A.C. 81; 72 C.C.C.(3d) 421 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Alekseev (1990), 10 W.C.B.(2d) 550 (B.C. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Barsalou (No. 3) (1901), 4 C.C.C. 446 (Que. K.B.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Clancey, [1992] O.J. No. 3967 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Clancey, [1992] O.J. No. 3968 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Clancey, [1993] O.J. No. 4162 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Chenier [2001] O.J. No. 1279 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Derose, [2000] A.J. No. 1256 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Habhab (I.) (1997), 197 A.R. 161 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Harris (M.) (1994), 74 O.A.C. 398; 93 C.C.C.(3d) 478 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Jewell (1974), 22 C.C.C.(2d) 252 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Kyling, [1996] Q.J. No. 1566 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Mantha (2001), 155 C.C.C.(3d) 301 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. McLaughlin (1974), 15 C.C.C.(2d) 562 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Mentuck, [2000] M.J. No. 33 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Navaraj, [1998] O.J. No. 3977 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Shalala, [1997] N.B.J. No. 642 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Stupp (1982), 70 C.C.C.(2d) 107 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Sungalia et al., [1992] O.J. No. 3718 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Taillefer (1995), 100 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Virgo (G.) (1993), 67 O.A.C. 275 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Walker, [1999] O.J. No. 653 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 7].

Trizec Equities Ltd. v. Ellis-Don Management Services Ltd. (1996), 37 Alta. L.R.(3d) 442 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Bisson (J.) et autres, [1994] R.J.Q. 308; 60 Q.A.C. 173; 87 C.C.C.(3d) 440 (C.A.), affd. [1994] 3 S.C.R. 1097; 173 N.R. 237; 65 Q.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Shayesteh (S.) (1996), 94 O.A.C. 81; 111 C.C.C.(3d) 225 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Garofoli et al. (1988), 27 O.A.C. 1; 41 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Edwards (C.), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 128; 192 N.R. 81; 88 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [paras. 8, 23].

R. v. Dawson (1998), 58 C.R.R.(2d) 362 (Ont. Ct. Jus.), refd to. [paras. 8, 23].

R. v. Belnavis (A.) and Lawrence (C.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 341; 216 N.R. 161; 103 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [paras. 8, 23].

R. v. Bisson (J.) et autres, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 1097; 173 N.R. 237; 65 Q.A.C. 241, affing. [1994] R.J.Q. 308; 60 Q.A.C. 173; 87 C.C.C.(3d) 440 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 8, 23].

Mitton et al. v. British Columbia Securities Commission (1999), 123 B.C.A.C. 263; 201 W.A.C. 263 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 8, 24].

R. v. Trang (D.) et al. (2001), 300 A.R. 105 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Donaldson (1990), 58 C.C.C.(3d) 294 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Villeneuve (A.) (1992), 50 Q.A.C. 278; 77 C.C.C.(3d) 171 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 8, 24].

R. v. Church of Scientology of Toronto et al. (1997), 99 O.A.C. 321; 116 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Rowbotham et al. (1988), 25 O.A.C. 321; 41 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

Franks v. Delaware (1978), 438 U.S. 154 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 13].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Cudmore, G.D., Civil Evidence Handbook (1994 Looseleaf Ed.), vol. 1, generally [para. 7].

Olah, J.A., The Art and Science of Advocacy (1990 Looseleaf Ed.), vol. 1, generally [para. 7].

Sopinka, John, Lederman, Sydney N., and Bryant, Alan W., The Law of Evidence in Canada (2nd Ed. 1999), generally [para. 6].

Counsel:

R.C. Claus, G. Luther, L.V. Halyn, H. Silver, E.O. Baker, G. Lazin, for the applicants;

P. Barber and G.A. Befus, for the respondent.

This matter was heard on November 12-20, 2002, and January 14 and 15, 2003, before Binder, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment on January 20, 2003.