R. v. Trang (D.) et al., 2001 ABQB 150

• Judge: Binder, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: February 21, 2001
• Citations: 2001 ABQB 150;(2001), 284 A.R. 286 (QB)

R. v. Trang (D.) (2001), 284 A.R. 286 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] A.R. TBEd. MR.064

Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) v. De Trang, Tuan Quoc Trang, Binh Quoc Trang, Cuong Quoc Trang, Thao Mai Dao, James Edward Mah, Phuc Canh Truong, Ly Duy Phan, Man Kit Chan, Alex Hang Chan, Donald Cheung, Vi Quoc Tang, Tien Lai Lam, Dinh Duc Le, Long Nguyen, Jerry Nguyen, Thi Hoang Le, Joseph Vincent Kochan, Anh Le Tran, Sai Ming Fok, Josephine Soo Yun Voon, Phuc Duc Nguyen, Hiep Quang Le, Helen Hoang Nguyen, Trung Quoc Tran, Rocky Allan Simmons, Phong Huy Tran, Adrian Tiburcio Vergara, Vu Hang Trinh, Bao Minh Tran, Willy T. Lau (applicants)

(Action No. 0003 2182 C5; 2001 ABQB 150)

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

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Binder, J.

March 2, 2001.

Summary:

The Attorney General of Canada preferred a direct indictment against various accused for participating in a criminal organization and trafficking. Other charges had been severed. The accused applied for an order declaring the direct indictment null and void as to the criminal organization offence on the ground that the Attorney General of Canada lacked constitutional authority to commence proceedings.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dis­missed the application.

Editor's note: for a related case see 284 A.R. 274.

Constitutional Law - Topic 6476

Federal jurisdiction (s. 91) - Criminal law - "Procedure in criminal matters" - Prose­cutorial authority - The Attorney General of Canada preferred a direct indictment against the accused for participating in a criminal organization (Criminal Code, s. 467.1) and trafficking - Section 467.2 of the Code authorized the Attorney General of Canada to conduct proceedings related to a criminal organization offence that arose out of an alleged offence under a federal act other than the Criminal Code - The accused argued that the Attorney General of Canada lacked constitutional authority to commence a criminal organiz­ation prosecution because it was a Crimi­nal Code offence and the administration of justice in the province was within the province's exclusive jurisdiction (Constitu­tion Act, 1867, s. 92(14)) - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the federal Crown had the authority to pros­ecute in this case - The federal govern­ment had at least concurrent jurisdiction over the prosecution of criminal offences whether contained in the Criminal Code or another federal statute - Therefore, the federal Attorney General, under the doc­trine of paramountcy, had the right, if it so choose, to prosecute the offence to the exclusion of the provincial Attorney Gen­eral and did not require the province's consent.

Constitutional Law - Topic 6476

Federal jurisdiction (s. 91) - Criminal law - "Procedure in criminal matters" - Prose­cutorial authority - In the context of de­termining prosecutorial authority, the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that a distinction between "pure" Criminal Code offences and those contained in other federal legislation and supportable under other heads of power was untenable - See paragraph 41.

Constitutional Law - Topic 6476

Federal jurisdiction (s. 91) - Criminal law - "Procedure in criminal matters" - Prose­cutorial authority - The Attorney General of Canada preferred a direct indictment against the accused for participating in a criminal organization (Criminal Code, s. 467.1) and trafficking - Section 467.2 of the Code authorized the Attorney General of Canada to conduct proceedings related to a criminal organization offence that arose out of an alleged offence under a federal act other than the Criminal Code - The accused argued that the Attorney General of Canada lacked constitutional authority to commence a criminal organiz­ation prosecution - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that in the circum­stances the s. 467.1 offence was essentially a crime against the laws for the sup­pression of the traffic in narcotics and "if Parliament can give to the Attorney Gen­eral of Canada authority to institute pro­ceedings for the enforcement of a fed­eral statute regarding suppression of the traffic in narcotics, it is necessarily inci­dental that it can also institute proceedings for an offence which is essentially against the laws for the suppression of the traffic in narcotics." - See paragraph 54.

Constitutional Law - Topic 6476

Federal jurisdiction (s. 91) - Criminal law - "Procedure in criminal matters" - Prose­cutorial authority - An issue arose re­specting the federal Crown's constitutional authority to prosecute a criminal organiz­ation offence under s. 467.1 of the Crimi­nal Code involving drug trafficking - Alberta argued that the federal government had concurrent jurisdiction with the prov­inces to prosecute criminal conduct that was transprovincial in nature - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench opined that "Parli­ament's powers under s. 91(27) [the crimi­nal law power] are not restricted to trans­provincial conduct" - See para­graphs 55 to 57.

Constitutional Law - Topic 7402

Provincial jurisdiction (s. 92) - Adminis­tration of justice (s. 92(14)) - General principles - Extent of power or subject matter - [See first Constitutional Law - Topic 6476 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 25

General principles - Prosecution of crime - Persons who may conduct prosecutions - [See first and third Constitutional Law - Topic 6476 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 2721

Attempts, conspiracies, accessories and parties - Participation in criminal organiz­ation - General - [See first and third Con­stitutional Law - Topic 6476 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Light (R.C.) and Hull (R.B.) (1993), 21 B.C.A.C. 241; 37 W.A.C. 241; 78 C.C.C.(3d) 221 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Luz (1988), 5 O.R.(3d) 52 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Miller (1975), 27 C.C.C.(2d) 438 (Que. C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1975), 5 N.R. 269 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Hancock and Proulx (1976), 30 C.C.C.(3d) 544 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Hauser, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 984; 26 N.R. 541; 16 A.R. 91, refd to. [paras. 7, 22].

R. v. Pelletier (1974), 18 C.C.C.(2d) 516 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

Di Iorio and Fontaine v. Common Jail of Montreal (City), [1978] 1 S.C.R. 152; 8 N.R. 361, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Dunn, Lowe, Ross and Yee (1977), 2 Sask.R. 145; 36 C.C.C.(2d) 495 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Pontbriand (1978), 39 C.C.C.(2d) 145 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Parrot (1979), 51 C.C.C.(2d) 539 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Aziz, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 188; 35 N.R. 1, consd. [paras. 7, 43].

R. v. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. (Nos. 1 & 2) (1981), 62 C.C.C.(2d) 118 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [paras. 7, 26].

Canadian National Transportation Ltd. and Canadian National Railway Co. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [1983] 2 S.C.R. 206; 49 N.R. 241; 49 A.R. 39, consd. [paras. 7, 17].

R. v. Wetmore et al., [1983] 2 S.C.R. 284; 44 N.R. 286, consd. [paras. 7, 17].

R. v. Sheldon S., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 254; 110 N.R. 321; 41 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [paras. 7, 28].

R. v. S.S. - see R. v. Sheldon S.

Knox Contracting Ltd. and Knox v. Canada and Minister of National Rev­enue et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 338; 110 N.R. 171; 106 N.B.R.(2d) 408; 265 A.P.R. 408, refd to. [paras. 7, 27].

Kourtessis et al. v. Minister of National Revenue et al., [1993] 2 S.C.R. 53; 153 N.R. 1; 27 B.C.A.C. 81; 45 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [paras. 7, 29].

R. v. Lindquist (1985), 65 A.R. 148; 40 Alta. L.R.(2d) 392 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Douglas and Douris, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 301; 122 N.R. 1; 47 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 7].

Reference Re Validity of Section 5(a) of Dairy Industry Act (Margarine Case), [1949] S.C.R. 1; [1949] 1 D.L.R. 433, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Crown Zellerbach Canada Ltd., [1988] 1 S.C.R. 401; 84 N.R. 1, refd to. [paras. 7, 64].

R. v. Hydro-Quebec, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 213; 217 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Colet, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 2; 35 N.R. 227, refd to. [para. 7].

United States of America v. Elliott (1978), 571 F.2d 880, refd to. [para. 7].

Reference Re Firearms Act (Can.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 783; 254 N.R. 201; 261 A.R. 201; 225 W.A.C. 201, refd to. [paras. 8, 45].

R. v. Sharpe (J.R.) (2001), 264 N.R. 201; 146 B.C.A.C. 161; 239 W.A.C. 161, (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 9].

Schachter v. Canada et al., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 679; 139 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 9].

Cotroni v. Canada (Attorney General), [1976] 1 S.C.R. 219; 3 N.R. 292, refd to. [para. 10].

Edwards v. Canada (Attorney General), [1930] A.C. 124 (P.C.), refd to. [paras. 10, 63].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 467.2(1) [para. 3].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, vol. 134, 2nd Sess., 35th Par­liament (June 18, 1996), pp. 3982, 3983, 3984 3985 [para. 9].

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, vol. 134, 2nd Sess., 35th Par­liament (April 17, 1997), pp. 9902, 9903, 9904 [para. 9].

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, vol. 134, 2nd Sess., 35th Par­liament (April 21, 1997), pp. 9997, 10005 [paras. 10, 56]; 10013 to 10024 [para. 9].

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, vol. 135, 1st Sess., 36th Parlia­ment (November 27, 1997), p. 2344ff [paras. 8, 10, 65].

Finkelstein, N., in Laskin, Bora, Canadian Constitutional Law (5th Ed. 1986), vol. 1, generally [para. 8]; pp. 208, 209 [para. 37].

Hansard (Can.) - see Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates.

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (Looseleaf Ed. 1992), vol. 1, generally [para. 8]; pp. 19-14, note 72 [para. 35]; 19-17 [para. 36]; 19-18 [para. 39].

Laskin, Bora, Canadian Constitutional Law (5th Ed. 1986), vol. 1, generally [para. 8].

Lynch, G.E., R.I.C.O., The Crime of Being a Criminal, Parts III and IV (1987), 87 Col. L.Rev. 920, generally [para. 7].

Monahan, P.J., Constitutional Law (1997), generally [para. 10].

Whitley, S.J., Criminal Justice and the Constitution (1989), generally [para. 10]; p. 74 [para. 37].

Counsel:

Terence Semenuk, Q.C., and John D. James, for the applicants;

James Shaw, for the respondent;

Anne J. Brown, for the Attorney General of Alberta.

This application was heard on February 21, 2001, before Binder, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Ed­monton, who delivered the following judg­ment on March 2, 2001.