R. v. Trang (D.) et al., (2002) 332 A.R. 1 (QB)

• Judge: Watson, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: December 30, 2002
• Citations: (2002), 332 A.R. 1 (QB);2002 ABQB 1130

R. v. Trang (D.) (2002), 332 A.R. 1 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] A.R. TBEd. JA.021

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 1130)

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

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Watson, J.

December 30, 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 grounds that there was a reasonable apprehension of bias on his part. Other accused supported the application. The mat­ter was referred to another judge of the Court of Queen's Bench.

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

Editor's note: in a decision reported at 331 A.R. 216, Watson, J., held that the trial judge's referral was sound and he had jurisdiction to hear the recusal motion.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 668

Duty to court - General principles - Alle­gations of misconduct against opposing counsel or judge - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "adverse allega­tions about the deliberate conduct or motives of opposing Counsel should only be made with substantive grounds ... A similar principle should apply to judges" - See paragraph 105.

Courts - Topic 679

Judges - Disqualification - Recusal motion - Procedure - An accused's application for recusal of the trial judge for a reasonable apprehension of bias was referred to another judge - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that if it found a reasonable apprehension of bias, its duty was to advise the trial judge that he should recuse himself and declare a mistrial - The court stated that "the appropriate remedy ... would not be to nullify the entire process, but to open a new trial before another Trial Judge. ... a superior court of criminal jurisdiction would not entirely lose juris­diction by reason of a mistrial, regardless of the cause of the mistrial." - The court held that because the referral to it was in the nature of assistance to the trial judge, it would not be right for it to make a determination on the trial itself by declar­ing a mistrial - Regardless, it did not seem necessary to do so as the matter would return to the trial judge who would pre­sumably act upon the advice whether or not he considered it correct - See para­graphs 26 and 27.

Courts - Topic 679

Judges - Disqualification - Recusal motion - Procedure - The accused applied to have the trial judge recuse himself, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated, inter alia, that "a claimant should be expected to act promptly if the complaint is to be taken seriously". - See paragraph 139.

Courts - Topic 691

Judges - Disqualification - Bias - Reason­able apprehension of bias - During dis­cussions with counsel, the trial judge stated that it did not appear that a "Master List" of intercepted calls provided by the Crown was proof of compliance with the Crown's notice obligations for adducing the calls - Subsequently, the trial judge held that the Master List was part of the Crown's over­all case as to notice - The accused argued that the trial judge effectively misled them by reversing his position on the evidential effect of the Master List and thereby cre­ated a reasonable apprehension of bias - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that there was no reasonable apprehension of bias - The trial judge's comment could not be taken out of context - Further, it was not sound to suggest that every dia­logue with a trial judge in a huge case should be taken as some sort of running decision that committed the trial judge in the future - The trial judge could change his mind and had a duty to do so if, on reflection, he came to a different firm conclusion about the law - See paragraphs 82 to 100.

Courts - Topic 691

Judges - Disqualification - Bias - Reason­able apprehension of bias - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "for a Trial Judge to question Counsel as to the basis of their argument is not, of itself, such as to raise a reasonable apprehension of bias ... if a Trial Judge has reservations about what Counsel is saying, the fairest time to raise those reservations is during the open hearing when ... the opportunity for Counsel to correct misapprehensions or errors exists." - See paragraph 99.

Courts - Topic 691

Judges - Disqualification - Bias - Reason­able apprehension of bias - The Crown preferred an indictment against several accused - The trial judge directed that count 1 of the indictment be amended - The Crown's position had been that an amendment was not required - The accused argued that the trial judge's amendment created a reasonable apprehension of bias because it was an improper taking of the Crown's side in the case - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench rejected the argu­ment - Section 601 of the Criminal Code authorized the trial judge to order an amendment to cure the defect - The order occurred early in the proceedings and following full debate by counsel on the merits of an amendment in law and cir­cumstances - Further, the delay in raising the complaint was relevant in determining the strength of the complaint and its vis­ibility to the disinterested outside observer - See paragraphs 106 to 113.

Courts - Topic 691.1

Judges - Disqualification - Bias - Reason­able apprehension of bias - Effect of - [See first Courts - Topic 679 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 2942

Jurisdiction - Loss or suspension of juris­diction - Acts resulting in - [See first Courts - Topic 679 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4292

Procedure - Trial judge - Duties and func­tions of - Disqualification - [See first and third Courts - Topic 691 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4631

Procedure - Mistrials - General - [See first Courts - Topic 679 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4505

Procedure - Trial - Special duties of Crown - Duty to disclose evidence prior to trial - The Crown vetted certain material for disclosure, alleging irrelevance or privilege - The accused submitted that the reasons provided by the Crown for the vetting were merely conclusory titles and insufficient to comply with the Crown's disclosure obligations or the court's ability to review the vetting - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "Not every Crown claim as to privilege or irrelevance in every criminal trial must necessarily be such as to require a full blown debate as to the sufficiency of the Crown's particularity of its claim, or as to the accuracy of the Crown's claim, particularly if a Trial Judge has gone to the effort of reviewing the vetted and unvetted material as laboriously as was apparently done here. Stinchcombe [S.C.C.] does not mandate such a full debate on every conceivable occasion." - See paragraph 65.

Criminal Law - Topic 4723

Procedure - Information or indictment - Charge or count - Indictable offences - Amendment - General - [See third Courts - Topic 691 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Wu (J.J.) et al. (2002), 167 O.A.C. 141 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5, footnote 2].

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

R. v. Bow Street Stipendiary Magistrate; Ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No. 2) - see Pinochet, Re.

Pinochet, Re, [1998] 2 W.L.R. 272; 237 N.R. 201; [1999] 1 All E.R. 577 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 11, footnote 5].

R. v. Généreux, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 259; 133 N.R. 241; 70 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 88 D.L.R.(4th) 110; 8 C.R.R.(2d) 89, refd to. [para. 11, footnote 6].

United States of America v. Arnpreister (1994), 37 F.3d 466 (U.S.C.A. 9th Cir.), refd to. [para. 11, footnote 7].

R. v. Valente, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 673; 64 N.R. 1; 14 O.A.C. 79; 49 C.R.(3d) 97; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 24 D.L.R.(4th) 161; 37 M.V.R. 9; 19 C.R.R. 354, refd to. [para. 12, footnote 8].

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. 14, footnote 9].

R. v. Parks (C.) (1993), 65 O.A.C. 122; 15 O.R.(3d) 324; 84 C.C.C.(3d) 353; 24 C.R.(4th) 81; 21 W.C.B.(2d) 121 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1994] 1 S.C.R. x; 175 N.R. 321; 72 O.A.C. 159; 28 C.R.(4th) 403; 87 C.C.C.(3d) vi, refd to. [para. 15, footnote 10].

Liteky (J.P.) et al. v. United States of America (1994), 510 U.S. 540 (U.S.S.C.), refd to. [para. 16, footnote 11].

R. v. Sussex Justices; Ex parte McCarthy, [1924] 1 K.B. 256, refd to. [para. 17, footnote 12].

Committee for Justice and Liberty Founda­tion et al. v. National Energy Board et al., [1978] 1 S.C.R. 369; 9 N.R. 115; 68 D.L.R.(3d) 716, refd to. [para. 18, foot­note 15].

Idziak v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 631; 144 N.R. 327; 59 O.A.C. 241; 77 C.C.C.(3d) 65; 97 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 9 Admin. L.R.(2d) 1; 17 C.R.(4th) 161; 12 C.R.R.(2d) 77, application for rehearing refused (1992), 9 Admin. L.R.(2d) 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 19, footnote 17].

R. v. Hall (D.S.) (2002), 293 N.R. 239; 165 O.A.C. 319; 167 C.C.C.(3d) 449; 217 D.L.R.(4th) 536 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 20, footnote 19].

R. v. Regan (G.A.) (2002), 282 N.R. 1; 201 N.S.R.(2d) 63; 629 A.P.R. 63; 161 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 49 C.R.(5th) 1; 209 D.L.R.(4th) 41; 91 C.R.R.(2d) 51 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 22, footnote 21].

Laird v. Tatum et al. (1972), 409 U.S. 824 (U.S.S.C.), refd to. [para. 23, footnote 23].

Metropolitan Properties Co. v. Lannon, [1969] 1 Q.B. 577 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25, 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. 34, footnote 27].

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. 34, footnote 28].

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. 45, footnote 30].

R. v. Brown (L.A.) et al., [1997] O.T.C. 1 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 47, footnote 32].

R. v. McClure (D.E.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 445; 266 N.R. 275; 142 O.A.C. 201; 195 D.L.R.(4th) 513; 151 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 40 C.R.(5th) 19; 80 C.R.R.(2d) 217, refd to. [para. 48, footnote 33].

Benson v. Brown - see R. v. Brown (J.D.).

R. v. Brown (J.D.) (2002), 285 N.R. 201; 157 O.A.C. 1; 162 C.C.C.(3d) 257; 210 D.L.R.(4th) 341; 50 C.R.(5th) 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 48, footnote 34].

R. v. Grimes (D.W.) (1998), 209 A.R. 360; 160 W.A.C. 360; 59 Alta. L.R.(3d) 210 ; 122 C.C.C.(3d) 331; 49 C.R.R.(2d) 308 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 66, footnote 50].

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. 66, footnote 51].

R. v. Guess (G.) (2000), 143 B.C.A.C. 51; 235 W.A.C. 51; 148 C.C.C.(3d) 321 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (2001), 269 N.R. 398; 159 B.C.A.C. 177; 259 W.A.C. 177; 152 C.C.C.(3d) vi (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 68, footnote 52].

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, affing. (1998), 107 O.A.C. 81; 122 C.C.C.(3d) 225; 13 C.R.(5th) 283; 38 O.R.(3d) 1; 49 C.R.R.(2d) 189 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 68, footnote 53].

R. v. Neil (D.L.) (2002), 294 N.R. 201; 317 A.R. 73; 284 W.A.C. 73 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 80, footnote 58].

R. v. Hodson (B.S.), [2001] 8 W.W.R. 45; 281 A.R. 76; 248 W.A.C. 76; 44 C.R.(5th) 71; 92 Alta. L.R.(3d) 262 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 97, footnote 67].

R. v. Brouillard, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 39; 57 N.R. 168; 44 C.R.(3d) 124; 17 C.C.C.(3d) 193; [1985] R.D.J. 38; 16 D.L.R.(4th) 447, refd to. [para. 98, foot­note 68].

R. v. Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society et al. (No. 2), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 606; 139 N.R. 241; 114 N.S.R.(2d) 91; 313 A.P.R. 91; 74 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 93 D.L.R.(4th) 36; 43 C.P.R.(3d) 1; 10 C.R.R.(2d) 34, refd to. [para. 98, footnote 70].

R. v. C.N.H. (2002), 167 O.A.C. 292 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 99, footnote 71].

R. v. Antoine, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 212; 84 N.R. 80; 12 Q.A.C. 159, affing. (1984), 40 C.R.(3d) 375 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 105, footnote 74].

R. v. Whitehawk (G.W.) (1998), 163 Sask.R. 305; 165 W.A.C. 305 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 105, footnote 75].

R. v. Zundel (1990), 37 O.A.C. 354; 53 C.C.C.(3d) 161 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 105, footnote 76].

R. v. Valley (1986), 13 O.A.C. 89; 26 C.C.C.(3d) 207 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1989] 1 S.C.R. xiii; 67 N.R. 159; 15 O.A.C. 240, refd to. [para. 107, footnote 77].

United States of America v. Brickley (2002), 289 F.3d 1144 (U.S.C.A. 9th Cir.), refd to. [para. 111, footnote 78].

Bernard, Re (1994), 31 F.3d 842 (U.S.C.A. 9th Cir.), refd to. [para. 111, footnote 79].

R. v. D.C.A., [2000] 5 W.W.R. 380; 255 A.R. 157; 220 W.A.C. 157; 143 C.C.C.(3d) 302, leave to appeal refused (2000), 263 N.R. 396; 281 A.R. 247; 248 W.A.C. 247 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 115, footnote 80].

R. v. Barrette, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 121; 10 N.R. 321; 29 C.C.C.(2d) 189; 33 C.R.N.S. 377; 68 D.L.R.(3d) 260, refd to. [para. 116, footnote 81].

R. v. Manhas, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 591; 32 N.R. 8; 17 C.R.(3d) 331, refd to. [para. 116, footnote 82].

R. v. Dixon (S.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 244; 222 N.R. 243; 166 N.S.R.(2d) 241; 498 A.P.R. 241; 122 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 13 C.R.(5th) 217; 50 C.R.R.(2d) 208, refd to. [para. 117, footnote 83].

R. v. Smith (C.J.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 291; 222 N.R. 327; 165 N.S.R.(2d) 163; 495 A.P.R. 163; 122 C.C.C.(3d) 27, refd to. [para. 117, footnote 83].

R. v. Skinner (S.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 298; 222 N.R. 228; 165 N.S.R.(2d) 145; 495 A.P.R. 145; 122 C.C.C.(3d) 31, refd to. [para. 117, footnote 83].

R. v. Robart (G.L.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 279; 222 N.R. 321; 165 N.S.R.(2d) 171; 495 A.P.R. 171; 122 C.C.C.(3d) 36, refd to. [para. 117, footnote 83].

R. v. McQuaid (H.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 285; 222 N.R. 236; 165 N.S.R.(2d) 153; 495 A.P.R. 153; 122 C.C.C.(3d) 40, refd to. [para. 117, footnote 83].

R. v. Smith (A.J.) (1989), 35 O.A.C. 301; 52 C.C.C.(3d) 90 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 117, footnote 84].

Morris v. Slappy (1983), 461 U.S. 1; 103 S.Ct. 1610; 75 L.Ed.2d 610 (U.S.S.C.), refd to. [para. 117, footnote 85].

R. v. Harrison and Alonso (1982), 38 A.R. 304; 67 C.C.C.(2d) 401 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1982), 45 N.R. 540; 40 A.R. 260 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 117, footnote 86].

R. v. Howes, [1964] 2 Q.B. 454 (C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 117, footnote 87].

R. v. Toor (J.S.) (2001), 277 A.R. 350; 242 W.A.C. 350; 155 C.C.C.(3d) 345 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 117, footnote 88].

Turigan et al. v. Alberta, [1989] 6 W.W.R. 673; 90 A.R. 118; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 136; 53 D.L.R.(4th) 321; 62 Alta. L.R.(2d) 1, leave to appeal refused [1989] 1 S.C.R. xvi; 101 N.R. 159; 48 C.C.C.(3d) vi; 57 D.L.R.(4th) viii, refd to. [para. 135, footnote 97].

Broda v. Broda (2001), 286 A.R. 120; 253 W.A.C. 120 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 148, footnote 102].

R. v. Turkiewicz et al. (1979), 50 C.C.C.(2d) 406; 10 C.R.(3d) 352; 103 D.L.R.(3d) 332; 26 O.R.(2d) 570 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 151, footnote 103].

United States of America v. Wilkerson (2000). 208 F.3d 794 (9th Cir.), cert. denied (2001), 531 U.S. 1182, refd to. [para. 151, footnote 104].

R. v. Zundel (1987), 18 O.A.C. 161; 31 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 56 C.R.(3d) 1; 35 D.L.R.(4th) 338; 58 O.R.(2d) 129; 29 C.R.R. 349 (C.A.), leave to appeal ref­used (1988), 80 N.R. 317; 23 O.A.C. 317; 61 O.R.(2d) 588 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 152, footnote 105].

Nichols v. Alley (1995), 71 F.3d 347 (U.S.C.A. 10th Cir.), refd to. [para. 155, footnote 108].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Archibald, Bruce P., The Lessons of the Sphinx: Avoiding Apprehensions of Judicial Bias in a Multi-Racial, Multi-Cultural Society (1997), 10 C.R.(5th) 54, generally [para. 14, footnote 9].

Bacon, Francis, Essays: Of Judicature (1852), Works of Francis Bacon, Part I, p. 58 [para. 98, footnote 69].

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 by Watson, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who released the following decision on December 30, 2002.