R. v. Vader (T.E.), 2016 ABQB 55

• Judge: Thomas, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: January 26, 2016
• Citations: 2016 ABQB 55;[2016] A.R. TBEd. JA.113

R. v. Vader (T.E.), [2016] A.R. TBEd. JA.113

MLB being edited

Currently being edited for A.R. - judgment temporarily in rough form.

Temp. Cite: [2016] A.R. TBEd. JA.113

Her Majesty the Queen (Crown/respondent) v. Travis Edward Vader (accused/applicant)

(130781800Q1; 2016 ABQB 55)

Indexed As: R. v. Vader (T.E.)

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Thomas, J.

January 26, 2016.

Summary:

The accused was arrested on April 18, 2012, for two charges of first degree murder. The trial was scheduled for April 28, 2014. There were problems with late disclosure. On March 14, 2014, the accused's counsel brought a motion for an order compelling the Crown to provide full and complete disclosure. On March 19, 2014, the Crown entered a stay of proceedings (the 2014 stay). After disclosure was completed, the Crown reviewed the file and decided to recommence the charges. On December 19, 2014, the proceedings were recommenced and the RCMP arrested the accused. The projected date of trial was March 7, 2016. The accused applied to stop the prosecution. The accused asserted that the 2014 stay was designed to avoid the need to seek an adjournment of the trial otherwise set to commence on April 28, 2014. The accused sought a judicial stay of the proceedings pursuant to the common law abuse of process doctrine and ss. 7, 11(b) and 11(d) of the Charter. Alternatively, he claimed that the entry of the 2014 stay had delayed his trial by nearly two years, with the result that he had been in peril on these charges for close to four years from the time of his arrest on April 18, 2012. He argued that there had been unreasonable delay and the proceedings should be stayed based on a breach of his s. 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application. The accused had not made a case for the issuance of a stay based on the abuse of process doctrine. Further, in respect to the alleged breach of the accused's s. 11(b) Charter rights, the court held that unreasonable delay had not been shown in all of the circumstances of this litigation to date. A stay was refused on that ground as well.

Civil Rights - Topic 3157.4

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Abuse of process - See paragraphs 8 to 53.

Civil Rights - Topic 3265

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Speedy trial - Accused's right to - What constitutes "within a reasonable time" - See paragraphs 54 to 120.

Civil Rights - Topic 3270

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Speedy trial - Accused's right to - Evidence of prejudice and causes of delay - See paragraphs 54 to 120.

Criminal Law - Topic 26

General principles - Prosecution of crime - Prosecutorial discretion - See paragraphs 8 to 53.

Criminal Law - Topic 253

Abuse of process - What constitutes - See paragraphs 8 to 53.

Criminal Law - Topic 4486

Procedure - Trial - Stay of proceedings - See paragraphs 8 to 53.

Criminal Law - Topic 4505

Procedure - Trial - Special duties of Crown - Duty to disclose evidence prior to trial - See paragraphs 8 to 53.

Counsel:

Ashley Finlayson, Q.C., Jim Stewart and Eman Joumaa and (Crown Prosecutors - Specialized Prosecutions Branch), for the Crown/respondent;

Brian A. Beresh, Q.C., and Nathan Whitling (Beresh Cunningham Aloneissi O'Neill Hurley), for the accused/applicant.

This motion was heard on November 30 and December 1, 2, 3, 9 and 15, 2015, and January 12 and 13, 2016, before Thomas, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following memorandum of decision on January 26, 2016.