R. v. Trang (D.) et al., 2002 ABQB 1036

• Judge: Watson, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: Monday November 25, 2002
• Citations: 2002 ABQB 1036;(2002), 331 A.R. 216 (QB)

R. v. Trang (D.) (2002), 331 A.R. 216 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2002] A.R. TBEd. DE.016

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

(Action No. 016233983 Q1; 2002 ABQB 1036)

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

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Watson, J.

November 25, 2002.

Summary:

Several accused were charged with con­spiracy to traffic, participation in a criminal organization and possession of proceeds of crime. One of the accused (the applicant) applied to have the trial judge recuse himself on the ground that there was a reasonable apprehension of bias on his part. At the trial judge's request, the Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench referred the applica­tion to another judge of the court (Watson, J.). The applicant raised a preliminary issue of whether Watson, J., had jurisdiction to hear the application or whether the trial judge had exclusive jurisdiction.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, per Watson, J., held that the trial judge's referral was sound and Watson, J., had jurisdiction to hear the recusal motion.

Editor's note: for the final decision on the recusal application see 332 A.R. 1.

Courts - Topic 554

Judges - Powers - To control court pro­ceedings - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "a superior court judge can design and regulate procedures respect­ing all sorts of voir dires and in camera hearings provided the result gives all par­ticipants adjudicative fairness, the aims of the applicable rules of evidence and pro­cedure are not substantively infringed, the legal test[s] for the outcome is/are respected, and the result is just." - See paragraph 9.

Courts - Topic 583

Judges - Duties - Re reasons for decisions - An accused applied to have the trial judge recuse himself, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias - The trial judge had the application referred to another judge - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench rejected the argument that the trial judge failed to give reasons explaining the auth­ority for referring the motion - The context made clear what the trial judge's reasons were and his comments put those reasons beyond doubt - The court was not per­suaded that the trial judge had to give any more reasons for referring the matter out in the absence of some factor of adjudicative fairness requiring reasons - The referral did not convict anyone nor deny anyone a full and fair hearing - "A unique decision such as this, especially when done ex mero motu under the exer­cise of the procedural jurisdiction of a trial judge, would - it seems to me - require no extensive explanation unless the trial judge was given some reason to think that failure to further explain would deny fairness." - See paragraphs 66 to 78.

Courts - Topic 679

Judges - Disqualification - Recusal motion - Procedure - An accused in a large and complex trial applied to have the trial judge recuse himself, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias on his part - The trial judge had the application referred to another judge of the court - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the common law jurisdiction of superior courts included the ability of a trial judge to seek the assistance of another superior court judge to deal with a question of recusal and the ability of that other superior court judge to provide that assistance - There were various public policy justifications for so doing, the repute of justice being a main one, but curial efficiency being another - Further, "giving s. 669.2 of the Criminal Code [continuation of proceed­ings] an interpretation intended to best suit its objects and the larger purposes of the criminal justice system could allow within its embrace the referral by [the trial judge] on a limited basis".

Courts - Topic 679

Judges - Disqualification - Recusal motion - Procedure - An accused applied to have the trial judge recuse himself, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias - The trial judge had the application referred to another judge (Watson, J.) - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that there was common law jurisdiction for the trial judge to refer the matter and for Watson, J., to accept the referral - The court added that Watson, J.'s decision would form part of the trial before the trial judge and any appeal would be carried within an appeal from the outcome of that trial - See para­graphs 85 to 88.

Criminal Law - Topic 2921

Jurisdiction - Superior Court Judges - General - [See first Courts - Topic 679].

Criminal Law - Topic 4683

Procedure - Judgments and reasons for judgment - Reasons for judgment - Whether required - [See Courts - Topic 583].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Duong (T.) (1998), 73 O.T.C. 379 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 4, footnote 4].

Authorson v. Canada (Attorney General), [2001] O.T.C. 998 (Sup. Ct.), affd. (2002), 161 O.A.C. 1 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 4, footnote 5].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. New Brunswick (Attorney General), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 480; 203 N.R. 169; 185 N.B.R.(2d) 81; 463 A.P.R. 81; 39 C.R.R.(2d) 189; 110 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 2 C.R.(5th) 1; 139 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 9, footnote 7].

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, affing. (1998), 107 O.A.C. 81; 122 C.C.C.(3d) 225; 13 C.R.(5th) 283 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9, footnote 8].

R. v. Rahey, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 588; 75 N.R. 81; 78 N.S.R.(2d) 183; 193 A.P.R. 183; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 57 C.R.(3d) 289; 39 D.L.R.(4th) 481; 33 C.R.R. 275, refd to. [para. 10, footnote 9].

R. v. R.D.S., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 484; 218 N.R. 1; 161 N.S.R.(2d) 241; 477 A.P.R. 241; 118 C.C.C.(3d) 353; 10 C.R.(5th) 1, refd to. [para. 10, footnote 10].

R. v. Sarson (J.A.), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 223; 197 N.R. 125; 91 O.A.C. 124; 107 C.C.C.(3d) 21; 49 C.R.(4th) 75; 135 D.L.R.(4th) 402; 36 C.R.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 12, footnote 11].

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immi­gration) v. Tobiass et al., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 391; 218 N.R. 81; 118 C.C.C.(3d) 443; 10 C.R.(5th) 163; 151 D.L.R.(4th) 119; 1 Admin. L.R.(3d) 1; 14 C.P.C.(4th) 1; 40 Imm. L.R.(2d) 23, refd to. [para. 12, footnote 12].

Beauregard v. Canada, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 56; 70 N.R. 1; 30 D.L.R.(4th) 481; 26 C.R.R. 59, refd to. [para. 12, footnote 13].

United States of America v. Burns and Rafay, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 283; 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; [2001] 3 W.W.R. 193, refd to. [para. 13, footnote 14].

R. v. Fleming (D.P.) (2002), 216 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 347; 647 A.P.R. 347 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [para. 13, footnote 15].

R. v. Wilson, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 594; 51 N.R. 321; 26 Man.R.(2d) 194; [1984] 1 W.W.R. 481; 37 C.R.(3d) 97; 4 D.L.R.(4th) 577, refd to. [para. 15, foot­note 16].

Taylor and Western Guard Party v. Cana­dian Human Rights Commission, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 892; 117 N.R. 191; 3 C.R.R.(2d) 116; 75 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 13 C.H.R.R. D/435, refd to. [para. 15, foot­note 17].

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. 15, footnote 18].

R. v. Klippert (Al) Ltd., [1998] 1 S.C.R. 737; 225 N.R. 107; 216 A.R. 1; 175 W.A.C. 1; 123 C.C.C.(3d) 474; [1999] 4 W.W.R. 509, refd to. [para. 15, footnote 19].

United Nurses of Alberta v. Alberta (Attor­ney General), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 901; 135 N.R. 321; 125 A.R. 241; 14 W.A.C. 241; 13 C.R.(4th) 1; [1992] 3 W.W.R. 481; 1 Alta. L.R.(3d) 129; 71 C.C.C.(3d) 225; 89 D.L.R.(4th) 609; 92 C.L.L.C. 14,023; 9 C.R.R.(3d) 29; [1992] Alta. L.R.B.R. 137, refd to. [para. 15, footnote 20].

Québec (Procureur général) v. Laroche et al. (2002), 295 N.R. 291 (S.C.C.), reving. in part [2001] Q.J. No. 7209 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 15, footnote 21].

R. v. Domm (G.) (1996), 95 O.A.C. 262; 111 C.C.C.(3d) 449; 4 C.R.(5th) 61; 31 O.R.(3d) 540 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1997), 215 N.R. 320; 102 O.A.C. 320 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 16, footnote 23].

R. v. Doyle, [1977] 1 S.C.R. 597; 9 N.R. 285; 10 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 45; 17 A.P.R. 45; 29 C.C.C.(2d) 177; 68 D.L.R.(3d) 270, refd to. [para. 20, footnote 24].

R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326; 130 N.R. 277; 120 A.R. 161; 8 W.A.C. 161; 68 C.C.C.(3d) 1; [1992] 1 W.W.R. 97; 8 C.R.(4th) 277; 83 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193, refd to. [para. 25, footnote 26].

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, refd to. [para. 25, footnote 27].

R. v. Kochan (J.V.) et al. (2001), 288 A.R. 333; 50 W.C.B.(2d) 18 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 46, footnote 47].

R. v. P.P.G. Industries Ltd. - see Canada (Attorney General) v. P.P.G. Industries (Canada) Ltd. and Pilkington Brothers (Canada) Ltd.

Canada (Attorney General) v. P.P.G. In­dustries (Canada) Ltd. and Pilkington Brothers (Canada) Ltd., [1976] 2 S.C.R. 739; 7 N.R. 209, refd to. [para. 58, foot­note 61].

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; 60 C.C.C.(3d) 161; 80 C.R.(3d) 317; 50 C.R.R. 206, refd to. [para. 59, footnote 62].

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; 193 D.L.R.(4th) 449; 149 C.C.C.(3d) 449; 38 C.R.(5th) 307, refd to. [para. 59, footnote 63].

R. v. Sheppard (C.) (2002), 284 N.R. 342; 211 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 50; 633 A.P.R. 50; 162 C.C.C.(3d) 298; 210 D.L.R.(4th) 608; 50 C.R.(5th) 68 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 69, footnote 71].

R. v. Braich (A.) et al. (2002), 285 N.R. 162; 164 B.C.A.C. 1; 268 W.A.C. 1; 162 C.C.C.(3d) 257; 210 D.L.R.(4th) 635 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 69, footnote 72].

United States of America v. Morgan (1941), 313 U.S. 409, refd to. [para. 76].

R. v. Cooper (A.R.) (2002), 303 A.R. 399; 273 W.A.C. 399 (C.A.), affing. (2001), 289 A.R. 66 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 80, footnote 74].

MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. v. Simpson et al., [1995] 4 S.C.R. 715; 191 N.R. 260; 68 B.C.A.C. 161; 112 W.A.C. 161; 103 C.C.C.(3d) 262; [1996] 2 W.W.R. 1, refd to. [para. 81, footnote 75].

J.P. v. MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. - see Mac­Millan Bloedel Ltd. v. Simpson et al.

R. v. Adamson (1991), 49 O.A.C. 26; 65 C.C.C.(3d) 159; 3 O.R.(3d) 272; 5 C.R.R.(2d) 369 (C.A.), affing. (1990), 12 W.C.B.(2d) 527 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 87, footnote 76].

R. v. Druken (J.K.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 978; 228 N.R. 1; 166 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 107; 511 A.P.R. 107; 126 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 87, footnote 77].

R. v. Mack, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 903; 90 N.R. 173; [1989] 1 W.W.R. 577; 44 C.C.C.(3d) 513; 67 C.R.(3d) 1; 37 C.R.R. 277; 6 W.C.B.(2d) 80, refd to. [para. 90, footnote 78].

R. v. Neil (D.L.) (2002), 294 N.R. 201; 317 A.R. 73; 284 W.A.C. 73 (S.C.C.), affing. (2000), 266 A.R. 363; 228 W.A.C. 363 (C.A.), reving. (1998), 235 A.R. 152 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 91, foot­note 79].

R. v. Rochon (L.-P.) (2002), 167 C.C.C.(3d) 257 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 93, footnote 80].

R. v. St. Pierre (G.) (2002), 167 C.C.C.(3d) 309 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 93, footnote 81].

R. v. Vincent (A.) (2002), 167 C.C.C.(3d) 295 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 93, foot­note 82].

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. 96, footnote 83].

R. v. Hatton (1978), 39 C.C.C.(2d) 281 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 97, footnote 84].

Holman v. Rea (1912), 21 C.C.C. 11 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 99, footnote 85].

R. v. McRae (1897), 2 C.C.C. 49 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 99, footnote 86].

Saskatchewan (Attorney General) v. Fafard, P.C.J. (1994), 125 Sask.R. 196; 81 W.A.C. 196; 93 C.C.C.(3d) 483; 35 C.R.(4th) 186 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 99, footnote 87].

R. v. Cataract (L.C.) - see Saskatchewan (Attorney General) v. Fafard, P.C.J.

Saskatchewan (Attorney General) v. Saskatchewan (Provincial Judge) - see Saskatchewan (Attorney General) v. Fafard, P.C.J.

R. v. McMullin (1989), 90 N.S.R.(2d) 268; 230 A.P.R. 268; 7 W.C.B.(2d) 197 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 99, footnote 88].

R. v. Curtis (1991), 66 C.C.C.(3d) 156 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 99, footnote 89].

R. v. Hall (D.S.) (2002), 293 N.R. 239; 165 O.A.C. 319 (S.C.C.), affing. (2000), 136 O.A.C. 20; 35 C.R.(5th) 201; 147 C.C.C.(3d) 279 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 111, footnote 91].

R. v. Felderhof (J.B.), [2002] O.T.C. 829 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 113, footnote 92].

R. v. Stark (P.J.), [1994] O.J. No. 406 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 114, footnote 93].

R. v. Heyden (J.C.) and Vanderheyden (W.A.), [1998] O.T.C. 6 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 114, footnote 94].

R. v. Heyden (J.C.) and Vanderheyden (W.) (1996), 15 O.T.C. 310 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 114, footnote 94].

R. v. Mills, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 863; 67 N.R. 241; 16 O.A.C. 81; 52 C.R.(3d) 1; 26 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 29 D.L.R.(4th) 161; 21 C.R.R. 76; 58 O.R.(2d) 544, refd to. [para. 119, footnote 97].

R. v. Litchfield (B.F.) (1995), 174 A.R. 171; 102 W.A.C. 171 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 119, footnote 98].

R. v. Meltzer and Laison, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1764; 96 N.R. 391; 49 C.C.C.(3d) 453; 70 C.R.(3d) 383; 41 C.R.R. 39, refd to. [para. 119, footnote 99].

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, refd to. [para. 119, foot­note 100].

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, refd to. [para. 121, footnote 101].

R. v. Soulie (R.), [1992] B.C.J. No. 2373; 2002 CarswellBC 1723 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 123, footnote 103].

R. v. Cohn (1984), 4 O.A.C. 293; 15 C.C.C.(3d) 150; 42 C.R.(3d) 1; 13 D.L.R.(4th) 680; 48 O.R.(2d) 65; 10 C.R.R. 142 (C.A.), leave to appeal ref­used [1985] 1 S.C.R. vii; 58 N.R. 160; 9 O.A.C. 160, refd to. [para. 124, footnote 104].

R. v. Laframboise (A.J.) (1997), 200 A.R. 75; 146 W.A.C. 75 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 124, footnote 105].

R. v. Doz, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 463; 79 N.R. 151; 82 A.R. 394; 55 Alta. L.R.(2d) 289; 38 C.C.C.(3d) 479, refd to. [para. 125, footnote 106].

R. v. Boyd (A.) (2002), 319 A.R. 161 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 125, footnote 107].

R. v. Jackson (J.) (2002), 318 A.R. 249 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 125, footnote 108].

R. v. B.K., [1995] 4 S.C.R. 186; 188 N.R. 338; 134 Sask.R. 279; 101 W.A.C. 279; 102 C.C.C.(3d) 18; 43 C.R.(4th) 123, refd to. [para. 125, footnote 109].

Watkins v. Olafson et al., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 750; 100 N.R. 161; 61 Man.R.(2d) 81; [1986] 6 W.W.R. 481; 39 B.C.L.R.(2d) 294; 61 D.L.R.(4th) 577, refd to. [para. 127, footnote 110].

R. v. Salituro, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 654; 131 N.R. 161; 50 O.A.C. 125; 68 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 9 C.R.(4th) 324; 8 C.R.R.(2d) 173, refd to. [para. 127, footnote 111].

Bow Valley Husky (Bermuda) Ltd. et al. v. Saint John Shipbuilding Ltd. et al., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1210; 221 N.R. 1; 158 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 269; 490 A.P.R. 269, refd to. [para. 127, footnote 112].

Rizzo and Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 132, foot­note 113].

R. v. Gladue (J.T.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 688; 238 N.R. 1; 121 B.C.A.C. 161; 198 W.A.C. 161; 133 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 171 D.L.R.(4th) 385; 23 C.R.(5th) 197; [1999] 2 C.N.L.R. 252, refd to. [para. 132, footnote 114].

Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex et al. (2002), 287 N.R. 248; 166 B.C.A.C. 1; 271 W.A.C. 1; 212 D.L.R.(4th) 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 132, footnote 115].

R. v. Jarvis (W.J.) (2002), 295 N.R. 201; 317 A.R. 1; 284 W.A.C. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 132, footnote 116].

R. v. J.H. (2002), 155 O.A.C. 146; 161 C.C.C.(3d) 392 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 132, footnote 117].

R. v. Archean Resources Ltd. - see Ar­chean Resources Ltd. v. Newfoundland (Minister of Finance).

Archean Resources Ltd. v. Newfoundland (Minister of Finance) (2002), 215 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 124; 644 A.P.R. 124 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 133, footnote 118].

R. v. Skalbania (N.M.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 995; 220 N.R. 349; 99 B.C.A.C. 81; 162 W.A.C. 81; 120 C.C.C.(3d) 217; 11 C.R.(5th) 292, refd to. [para. 133, foot­note 119].

R. v. Ramsey (1972), 8 C.C.C.(2d) 188 (N.B.C.A.), refd to. [para. 136, footnote 120].

R. v. Lindsay (1972), 8 C.C.C.(2d) 287 (Sask. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 136, footnote 121].

R. v. Shrubsall (W.C.) (2000), 186 N.S.R.(2d) 348; 581 A.P.R. 348; 148 C.C.C.(3d) 425 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 136, footnote 122].

R. v. Koch (K.), [1990] O.J. No. 141 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 136, footnote 123].

R. v. Murphy (M.M.) (1998), 160 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 271; 494 A.P.R. 271 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 137, footnote 124].

R. v. Hiscock (D.W.) (1999), 179 N.S.R.(2d) 350; 553 A.P.R. 350 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 137, footnote 125].

R. v. Buchholz (1977), 32 C.C.C.(2d) 331 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 137, footnote 126].

R. v. Bertucci, [1984] 2 W.W.R. 459; 31 Sask.R. 1; 11 C.C.C.(3d) 83 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 138, footnote 127].

R. v. MacDougall (P.A.), [1998] 3 S.C.R. 45; 231 N.R. 147; 168 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 83; 517 A.P.R. 83; 19 C.R.(5th) 275; 128 C.C.C.(3d) 483, refd to. [para. 138, footnote 128].

R. v. Gallant (C.A.), [1998] 3 S.C.R. 80; 231 N.R. 190; 168 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 126; 517 A.P.R. 126; 19 C.R.(5th) 302; 128 C.C.C.(3d) 509, affing. [1997] Nfld. & P.E.I.R. Uned. 3 (P.E.I.C.A.), refd to. [para. 138, footnote 129].

R. v. Lochard (1973), 12 C.C.C.(2d) 445 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 138, footnote 130].

R. v. Beauchamp (S.) et al., [2002] J.Q. 3181 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 138, footnote 131].

R. v. Jassman (1975), 27 C.C.C.(2d) 271 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 139, footnote 132].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 669.2 [para. 130].

Counsel:

Dennis Edney, for the applicant, Dao;

Robert C. Claus, for De Trang in support of the applicant;

H. Markham Silver and Mary Brebner, for Tang in support of the applicant;

Ross G. Mitchell (by agent), for Binh Quoc Trang in support of the applicant;

Elliot O. Baker (by agent), for Kochan in support of the applicant;

Bryan D. Newton (by agent), for Tuan Quoc Trang in support of the applicant;

John D. James, Q.C. (by agent), for Cuong Quoc Trang in support of the applicant;

Gregory Lazin, for Truong, not taking part in application.

This application was heard on November 1 and 19, 2002, by Watson, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who released the following deci­sion on November 25, 2002.