R. v. Trang (D.) et al., (2001) 295 A.R. 250 (QB)

• Judge: Watson, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: May 16, 2001
• Citations: (2001), 295 A.R. 250 (QB);2001 ABQB 437

R. v. Trang (D.) (2001), 295 A.R. 250 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] A.R. TBEd. MY.080

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

(Action No. 0162-33983-Q1; 2001 ABQB 437)

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

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Watson, J.

May 18, 2001.

Summary:

Several accused were charged with conspiracy, participating in a criminal organization and drug offences. Some of the accused sought a declaration that s. 648(1) of the Criminal Code applied to all proceedings held in the absence of a jury to be selected in the future. Alternatively, they sought a general publication ban.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that s. 648(1) did not apply to pre-jury selection proceedings. However, the court ordered a ban on the publication of a change of venue application. Further, the court ordered a ban on the publication of all voir dires related to the admissibility of evidence under Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Dagenais et al. (S.C.C.).

Civil Rights - Topic 2490.1

Freedom of the press - Limitations - Criminal matters - Publication ban - Section 648 of the Criminal Code prohibited the publication of "any portion of a trial at which the jury was not present" - The accused argued that s. 648 should be interpreted as applying to all matters heard at any portion of the trial at which the jury is not present, even matters heard before the jury was selected - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench rejected the argument and held that s. 648 only applied to proceedings after the jury was selected and allowed to separate - The court stated that "it is proper to consider s. 648 to be something of a Constitutional compromise, viz. an attempt to balance fair trial and fundamental justice for the accused against freedom of the press and its related freedoms." - See paragraphs 38 to 65 - However, the court ordered a ban on the publication of all voir dires related to the admissibility of evidence under Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Dagenais et al. (S.C.C.).

Civil Rights - Topic 3143

Trials - Due process - Fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Pre-trial publication of evidence - [See Civil Rights - Topic 2490.1 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 3157

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Right to just and fair trial - [See Civil Rights - Topic 2490.1 ].

Courts - Topic 77

Stare decisis - Authority of judicial decisions - Prior decisions of same court - Reconsideration - The accused applied for a publication ban on all proceedings - In particular, they argued that s. 648(1) of the Criminal Code applied to all matters heard in the jury's absence, including pre-jury selection proceedings - At issue was the effect of a prior decision dealing with the same issue - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that res judicata and issue estoppel did not apply (except in a very limited sense) - The prior ruling was, in a sense, interlocutory and it was open to the court to reconsider it - The fact that the trial in which the argument had been advanced before the prior court was not the trial now proceeding was a sufficient basis to reconsider the argument - However, the court did not regard the prior decision as nullified or ineffectual in any manner - See paragraphs 38 to 41.

Criminal Law - Topic 4348

Procedure - Jury - Evidence - Prohibition against publication of information obtained in jury's absence - [See Civil Rights - Topic 2490.1 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4490

Procedure - Trial - Publicity - Restrictions - [See Civil Rights - Topic 2490.1 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4492

Procedure - Trial - Restrictions on publications affecting fairness of trial - Several accused were charged with drug trafficking and related offences - The accused moved for a change of venue - The application was denied and a temporary ban on publication in relation to the application was ordered - The accused applied for a more extensive ban - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench ordered a ban on publication of the change of venue motion until the jury was sequestered - There was a real and substantial risk that reporting of the venue change hearing would prejudice the accused - See paragraphs 66 to 91.

Criminal Law - Topic 4492

Procedure - Trial - Restrictions on publications affecting fairness of trial - [See Civil Rights - Topic 2490.1 ].

Estoppel - Topic 386

Estoppel by record (res judicata) - Res judicata as a bar to subsequent proceedings - Issues decided in prior proceedings - [See Courts - Topic 77 ].

Statutes - Topic 2263

Interpretation - Presumptions and rules in aid - Against interference with vested rights - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "The difference between 'penal provisions' and 'procedural provisions' ... is that they are governed not by the strict construction thesis applicable to crime definitions and penalty provisions. They are governed by the larger vested rights principle. That principle is that where ambiguous, a statute should not be read to inferentially oust or injure a vested right. I would agree with Counsel for the Applicants that the right to a fair trial is a vested right. But like the principles of fundamental justice, it is not an absolute notion and neither are they. ... to assess the effect of ambiguity on a vested right of that sort, the Court should not idealize or absolutize the vested right so as to justify a greater intrusion on what is said to be an ambiguous law. The ambiguity that might be 'read out' of a statute in favour of a vested right should only be to the degree necessary to preserve the right." - See paragraphs 58 to 64.

Cases Noticed:

Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291; 41 C.R.(3d) 97; [1984] 6 W.W.R. 577; 33 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193; 27 B.L.R. 297; 14 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 11 D.L.R.(4th) 641; 2 C.P.R.(3d) 1; 9 C.R.R. 355, affing. [1983] 3 W.W.R. 385; 42 A.R. 93; 147 D.L.R.(3d) 420; 24 Alta. L.R.(2d) 307 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 4, footnote 1].

United States of America v. Burns and Rafay (2001), 265 N.R. 212; 148 B.C.A.C. 1; 243 W.A.C. 1; 151 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 195 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 39 C.R.(5th) 205 (S.C.C.), affing. (1997), 94 B.C.A.C. 46; 152 W.A.C. 46; 117 C.C.C.(3d) 454; 8 C.R.(5th) 377 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 4, footnote 2].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Dagenais et al., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835; 175 N.R. 1; 76 O.A.C. 81; 94 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 34 C.R.(4th) 269; 25 C.R.R.(2d) 1; 120 D.L.R.(4th) 12, reving. (1993), 59 O.A.C. 310 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5, footnote 3].

R. v. Cheung (D.) et al. (2000), 279 A.R. 201; 150 C.C.C.(3d) 192 (Q.B.), consd. [para. 11, footnote 4].

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; 80 C.R.(3d) 317; 60 C.C.C.(3d) 161; 50 C.R.R. 206, reving. (1988), 27 O.A.C. 1; 64 C.R.(3d) 193; 41 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 43 C.R.R. 252 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30, footnote 5].

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation v. New Brunswick et al., [1996] 3 S.C.R. 480; 203 N.R. 169; 185 N.B.R.(2d) 81; 472 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, reving. in part (1994), 148 N.B.R.(2d) 161; 378 A.P.R. 161; 32 C.R.(4th) 334; 91 C.C.C.(3d) 560 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27, footnote 6].

R. v. L.E.D., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 111; 97 N.R. 321; 71 C.R.(3d) 1; 39 B.C.L.R.(2d) 273; [1989] 6 W.W.R. 501; 50 C.C.C.(3d) 142, reving. (1987), 20 B.C.L.R.(2d) 384 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30, footnote 7].

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; 103 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 29 W.C.B.(2d) 152; 44 C.R.(4th) 1, affing. (1994), 42 B.C.A.C. 105; 67 W.A.C. 105; 20 C.R.R.(2d) 212; 29 C.R.(4th) 40; 89 C.C.C.(3d) 109, additional reasons at (1994), 43 B.C.A.C. 70; 69 W.A.C. 70; 30 C.R.(4th) 55; 90 C.C.C.(3d) 257; [1994] 1 W.W.R. 560; 30 C.R.(4th) 55 (C.A.), reving. (1992), 18 C.R.(4th) 98 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 35, footnote 8].

R. v. Curragh Inc. et al., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 537; 209 N.R. 252; 159 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 468 A.P.R. 1; 5 C.R.(5th) 291; 113 C.C.C.(3d) 481, affing. (1996), 146 N.S.R.(2d) 161; 422 A.P.R. 161; 44 C.R.(4th) 274 (C.A.), reving. (1995), 146 N.S.R.(2d) 162; 422 A.P.R. 163 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 36, footnote 9].

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, affing. [1982] 2 W.W.R. 127; 131 D.L.R.(3d) 352; 64 C.C.C.(2d) 538; 25 C.R.(3d) 53; 17 Alta. L.R.(2d) 127 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40, footnote 10].

R. v. Adams (J.R.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 707; 190 N.R. 161; 178 A.R. 161; 110 W.A.C. 161; 103 C.C.C.(3d) 262; 44 C.R.(4th) 195; 131 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 40, footnote 11].

Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 45, footnote 12].

R. v. Araujo (A.) et al., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 992; 262 N.R. 346; 143 B.C.A.C. 257; 235 W.A.C. 257; 149 C.C.C.(3d) 449; 38 C.R.(5th) 307; 193 D.L.R.(4th) 449, affing. (1998), 109 B.C.A.C. 131; 177 W.A.C. 131; 127 C.C.C.(3d) 315 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 45, footnote 13].

R. v. Mills (B.J.), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 668; 248 N.R. 101; 244 A.R. 201; 209 W.A.C. 201; 28 C.R.(5th) 207; 139 C.C.C.(3d) 321; [2000] 2 W.W.R. 180; 75 Alta. L.R.(3d) 1, reving. (1997), 205 A.R. 321; 207 A.R. 161; 12 C.R.(5th) 138; [1998] 4 W.W.R. 83 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 49, footnote 15].

R. v. McLure (D.E.) (2001), 266 N.R. 275; 195 D.L.R.(4th) 513; 151 C.C.C.(3d) 321, refd to. [para. 49, footnote 16].

R. v. Sharpe (J.R.) (2001), 264 N.R. 201; 146 B.C.A.C. 161; 239 W.A.C. 161; 150 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 39 C.R.(5th) 72; 194 D.L.R.(4th) 1 (S.C.C.), affing. (1999), 127 B.C.A.C. 76; 207 W.A.C. 76; 136 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 175 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 25 C.R.(5th) 215; 69 B.C.L.R.(3d) 234; [2000] 1 W.W.R. 241 (C.A.), reving. (1999), 1 B.C.T.C. 138; 22 C.R.(5th) 129; 169 D.L.R.(4th) 536 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 49, footnote 17].

R. v. Budreo (W.) (2000), 128 O.A.C. 105; 46 O.R.(3d) 481; 142 C.C.C.(3d) 225; 32 C.R.(5th) 127 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 51, footnote 18].

Edmonton Journal v. Alberta (Attorney General), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1326; 102 N.R. 321; 103 A.R. 321; 64 D.L.R.(4th) 577; [1990] 1 W.W.R. 577; 71 Alta. L.R.(2d) 273; 45 C.R.R. 1; 41 C.P.C.(2d) 109, reving. (1987), 78 A.R. 375; 53 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193; 41 D.L.R.(4th) 502; [1987] 5 W.W.R. 385; 34 C.R.R. 111 (C.A.), affing. (1985), 63 A.R. 114; 40 Alta. L.R.(2d) 326; 22 D.L.R.(4th) 446; [1986] 1 W.W.R. 453; 23 C.R.R. 356 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 54, footnote 19].

R. v. Wholesale Travel Group Inc. and Chedore, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 154; 130 N.R. 1; 49 O.A.C. 161; 67 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 8 C.R.(4th) 145; 84 D.L.R.(4th) 161; 38 C.P.R.(3d) 451; 7 C.R.R.(2d) 36, affing. (1989), 35 O.A.C. 331; 70 O.R.(2d) 545; 63 D.L.R.(4th) 325; 52 C.C.C.(3d) 9; 73 C.R.(3d) 320; 46 C.R.R. 73; 27 C.P.R.(3d) 129 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 55, footnote 20].

Comité paritaire de l'industrie de la chemise v. Potash et Sélection Milton, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 406; 168 N.R. 241; 61 Q.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 55, footnote 21].

R. v. Gisby (K.) et al. (2000), 271 A.R. 303; 234 W.A.C. 303; 148 C.C.C.(3d) 549 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 57, footnote 22].

R. v. Lyons, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 309; 80 N.R. 161; 82 N.S.R.(2d) 271; 207 A.P.R. 271; 61 C.R.(3d) 1; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 44 D.L.R.(4th) 193; 32 C.R.R. 41, affing. (1984), 65 N.S.R.(2d) 29; 147 A.P.R. 29; 15 C.C.C.(3d) 129 (C.A.), affing. (1984), 62 N.S.R.(2d) 383; 136 A.P.R. 383 (Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 61, footnote 23].

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; 135 C.C.C.(3d) 257; 24 C.R.(5th) 201; 42 M.V.R.(3d) 161; 174 D.L.R.(4th) 111, affing. (1998), 102 B.C.A.C. 28; 166 W.A.C. 28; 32 M.V.R.(3d) 161; 122 C.C.C.(3d) 167 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 62, footnote 24].

Harper v. Canada (Attorney General), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 764; 262 N.R. 201; 271 A.R. 201; 234 W.A.C. 201; 193 D.L.R.(4th) 38, reving. (2000), 266 A.R. 262; 228 W.A.C. 262 (C.A.), affing. [2000] A.J. No. 1226 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 71, footnote 25].

RJR-MacDonald Inc. et Imperial Tobacco Ltd. v. Canada (Procureur général), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311; 164 N.R. 1; 60 Q.A.C. 241;, 111 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 74, footnote 26].

R. v. Mezzo, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 802; 68 N.R. 1; 42 Man.R.(2d) 161; 52 C.R.(3d) 113; [1986] 4 W.W.R. 577; 27 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 30 D.L.R.(4th) 161, affing. (1983), 22 Man.R.(2d) 223; 35 C.R.(3d) 272 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 83, footnote 27].

R. v. Fosbraey (1950), 98 C.C.C. 275 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 87, footnote 28].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 645(5) [para. 43]; sect. 648 [para. 10].

Counsel:

James N. Shaw, Cynthia Dickins, for the Crown;

Robert Claus, for De Trang;

Bryan Newton, for Tuan Quoc Trang;

Terence Semenuk, Q.C., and Ross Mitchell, for Binh Quoc Trang;

John James and Nate Whitling, for Cuong Quoc Trang;

Dennis Edney and Clayton Rice, for Thao Mai Dao;

Patrick Murphy, for Phuc Canh Troung;

Paul McMurray and Robert Joly, Ly Duy Phan;

H. Markham Silver and Mary Brebner, for Vi Quoc Tang;

Elliot Baker, for Joseph Vincent Kochan;

Barry Zalmanowitz, for Edmonton Sun Newspaper;

Fred Kozak and Nick Parker, for Edmonton Journal Newspaper.

This matter was heard on May 16, 2001, by Watson, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment on May 18, 2001.