R. v. Vader (T.E.), 2016 ABQB 301

• Judge: Thomas, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: May 10, 2016
• Citations: 2016 ABQB 301;[2016] A.R. TBEd. JN.033

R. v. Vader (T.E.), [2016] A.R. TBEd. JN.033

MLB being edited

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

Temp. Cite: [2016] A.R. TBEd. JN.033

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

(130781800Q1; 2016 ABQB 301)

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

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Thomas, J.

May 25, 2016.

Summary:

On July 3, 2010, Lyle and Marie McCann departed from St. Albert, Alberta, in their motor home. They disappeared and were presumed dead. The accused faced two charges of first degree murder. The Crown applied to admit into evidence hearsay statements by Lyle and Marie McCann made prior to their disappearance in July 2010. Four Crown witnesses, some in separate voir dires, gave evidence on what they had been told were the travel plans of the McCanns. The Crown argued that this evidence could be admitted under the principled exception to the exclusion of hearsay where that hearsay evidence was found to be necessary and reliable. The defence conceded that the statements met the necessity aspect of this test, because the McCanns were not available to testify. However, the defence challenged the reliability of the evidence from all four witnesses.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench concluded that the evidence of Trudy Marie Holder, Bretton McCann, and Alice Chalmers would be admitted into evidence and formed part of the Crown's case. The evidence of Margaret Ann Muffitt to the extent it constituted hearsay was excluded. The court concluded that Ms. Muffitt's evidence should not be admitted under the principled approach as it did not meet the required threshold of reliability. While the court accepted that Ms. Muffitt had a telephone conversation on July 2, 2010, with Marie McCann concerning a road trip by the McCanns, and that Ms. Muffitt received some information in that telephone discussion, the possibility that this hearsay evidence had become intermixed or confused with other information subsequently obtained by Ms. Muffitt from other sources was a risk that warranted the exclusion of this evidence

Evidence - Topic 1527

Hearsay rule - Hearsay rule exceptions and exclusions - Where admission of hearsay necessary and evidence reliable - See paragraphs 1 to 23.

Counsel:

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

Brian A. Beresh, Q.C. (Beresh Cunningham Aloneissi O'Neill Hurley), for the accused/respondent.

This matter was heard on May 10, 2016, before Thomas, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton. Thomas, J., delivered the following decision orally on May 25, 2016, and in writing on June 7, 2016.