R. v. Trang (T.Q.) et al., 2001 ABQB 79

• Judge: Binder, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: February 05, 2001
• Citations: 2001 ABQB 79;(2001), 285 A.R. 166 (QB)

R. v. Trang (T.Q.) (2001), 285 A.R. 166 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] A.R. TBEd. FE.063

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Tuan Quoc Trang, Binh Quoc Trang, Cuong Quoc Trang, Thao Mai Dao, James Edward Mah, Tien Lai Lam, Thi Hoang Le, Joseph Vincent Kochan and Josephine Soo Yun Voon (applicants/accused)

(Action No. 0003 2182 C5; 2001 ABQB 79)

Indexed As: R. v. Trang (T.Q.) et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Binder, J.

February 6, 2001.

Summary:

The accused were charged with, inter alia, participating in a criminal organization contrary to s. 467.1 of the Criminal Code. They challenged the constitutionality of s. 467.1, arguing, inter alia, that the section breached s. 7 of the Charter because of vagueness and overbreadth. The accused sought to have the court determine the validity of s. 467.1 prior to voir dires concerning the admissibility of evidence.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the determination of the constitutional validity of s. 467.1 would not take place until a factual foundation had been established.

Civil Rights - Topic 3107

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - General principles and definitions - Void for vagueness doctrine - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench noted that there appeared to be a debate as to whether the doctrine of vagueness included the concept of broadness, or whether they were separate concepts or doctrines - The court concluded that "the concepts of vagueness and overbreadth are separate concepts that often overlap" - See paragraphs 9 and 10.

Civil Rights - Topic 3107.2

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - General principles and definitions - Overbreadth principle - The accused were charged with, inter alia, participating in a criminal organization contrary to s. 467.1 of the Criminal Code -They challenged the constitutionality of s. 467.1, arguing, inter alia, that the section breached s. 7 of the Charter because of vagueness and overbreadth - The accused sought to have the court determine the validity of s. 467.1 prior to voir dires concerning the admissibility of evidence, notwithstanding that there would be no adjudicative facts before the court - The accused argued that a factual foundation was not necessary - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the determination of the constitutional challenge would not take place until a factual foundation had been established - The court stated that "it would be unwise for a court, absent very compelling reasons, to undertake an overbreadth vagueness analysis of a section imposing criminal responsibility and sanctions in the absence of a factual foundation to assist the court in interpreting the section".

Civil Rights - Topic 3107.2

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - General principles and definitions - Overbreadth principle - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3107 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8585

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Practice - Time for deciding Charter issues - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 3107.2 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8586

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Practice - Method of raising Charter issues - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 3107.2 ].

Cases Noticed:

Reference Re Sections 193 and 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1123; 109 N.R. 81; 68 Man.R.(2d) 1; 56 C.C.C.(3d) 65, refd to. [paras. 3, 11].

Prostitution Reference - see Reference Re Sections 193 and 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code.

R. v. Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society (1990), 98 N.S.R.(2d) 296; 263 A.P.R. 296; 59 C.C.C.(3d) 30 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society (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, refd to. [paras. 3, 11].

R. v. Morales (M.), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 711; 144 N.R. 176; 51 Q.A.C. 161, addendum 147 N.R. 335, refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. Heywood (R.L.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 761; 174 N.R. 81; 50 B.C.A.C. 161; 82 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 3].

Ontario v. Canadian Pacific Ltd., [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1031; 183 N.R. 325; 82 O.A.C. 243, refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. Mills, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 863; 67 N.R. 241; 16 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. DeSousa, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 944; 142 N.R. 1; 56 O.A.C. 109, refd to. [paras. 3, 16].

R. v. Biller (V.K.) et al. (1999), 177 Sask.R. 161; 199 W.A.C. 161; 135 C.C.C.(3d) 551 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 3, 9].

Reference Re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266, refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. Vaillancourt, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 636; 81 N.R. 115; 10 Q.A.C. 161; 68 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 281; 209 A.P.R. 281, refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. Logan, Logan and Johnson, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 731; 112 N.R. 144; 41 O.A.C. 330, refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. Hess; R. v. Nguyen, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 906; 119 N.R. 353; 46 O.A.C. 13; 73 Man.R.(2d) 1; 3 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. Nguyen - see R. v. Hess; R. v. Nguyen.

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, refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. Creighton, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 3; 157 N.R. 1; 65 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. Mills (B.J.), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 668; 248 N.R. 101, refd to. [paras. 3, 24].

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. [para. 3].

R. v. Araujo (A.) et al. (2000), 262 N.R. 346; 143 B.C.A.C. 257; 235 W.A.C. 257 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. Jarvis (W.J.) (2000) 271 A.R. 263; 234 W.A.C. 263 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. Scott, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 979; 116 N.R. 361; 43 O.A.C. 277; 61 C.C.C.(3d) 300; 2 C.R.(4th) 53, refd to. [para. 3].

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. [paras. 3, 22].

R. v. Sharpe (J.R.) (1999), 127 B.C.A.C. 76; 207 W.A.C. 76 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. Sharpe (J.R.) (1999), 1 B.C.T.C. 138 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 3].

Metropolitan Stores (MTS) Ltd. v. Manitoba Food and Commercial Workers, Local 832 and Labour Board (Man.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 110; 73 N.R. 341; 46 Man.R.(2d) 241, refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. Morgentaler, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 463; 157 N.R. 97; 125 N.S.R.(2d) 81; 349 A.P.R. 81, refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. Goltz, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 485; 131 N.R. 1; 5 B.C.A.C. 161; 11 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 3].

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. [para. 4].

R. v. Hamill, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 301; 75 N.R. 149, refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Sieben, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 295; 74 N.R. 271, refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Pangman (W.G.) et al. (1999), 141 Man.R.(2d) 191 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Martin (1991), 43 O.A.C. 378; 2 O.R.(3d) 16 (C.A.), affd. [1992] 1 S.C.R. 838; 145 N.R. 161; 59 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335, refd to. [paras. 5, 14].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Hubbard, R.W., Wiretapping and Other Electronic Surveillance: Law and Procedure (2000), generally [para. 3].

Counsel:

Terence C. Semenuk, Q.C., for Binh Quoc Trang;

Richard Cairns, for Tien Lai Lam;

Donna R. Valgardson, for the Attorney General of Canada;

Anne Brown, for the Attorney General of Alberta.

This matter was heard on February 5, 2001, by Binder, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment on February 6, 2001.