R. v. Valkonen (M.A.), 2004 ABQB 322

• Judge: Moreau, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: April 16, 2004
• Citations: 2004 ABQB 322;(2004), 381 A.R. 115 (QB)

R. v. Valkonen (M.A.) (2004), 381 A.R. 115 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] A.R. TBEd. AP.175

Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) v. Mark Allan Valkonen (applicant)

(030350060U1; 2004 ABQB 322)

Indexed As: R. v. Valkonen (M.A.)

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Moreau, J.

April 26, 2004.

Summary:

The accused was charged with second degree murder and interfering with human remains. The accused applied to quash a search warrant to search the offices of the psychiatrist who treated him as a requirement of a probation order. The accused also sought to quash a subpoena requiring another psychiatrist to testify at his preliminary inquiry and an order in the nature of prohibition to preclude that psychiatrist from testifying for the Crown at trial.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed all of the applications.

Criminal Law - Topic 3093

Special powers - Issue of search warrants -What constitutes reasonable grounds - An accused charged with second degree murder and interfering with human remains had been attending mandatory counselling with a psychiatrist as a condition of his probation order respecting a prior, similar offence - The accused sought certiorari to quash a search warrant authorizing the search of the offices of the psychiatrist, submitting that (1) the warrant was invalid on its face for failing to particularize the offence and for failing to limit the search to relevant material, (2) there did not exist reasonable and probable grounds that the office contained evidence of the offences, (3) the warrant improperly permitted seizure of privileged material; and (4) the warrant authorized the seizure of materials which the accused was compelled to produce by court order - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application - There was evidence upon which the issuing judge could have issued the warrant - The warrant sufficiently identified the offence (murder), even though it did not name the accused, the date or the victim - The warrant sufficiently particularized the extent of the search (not a fishing expedition) - There was no presumptive or "class" privilege - It was open to the accused to raise the issues of privilege and compelled materials at trial - See paragraphs 5 to 41.

Criminal Law - Topic 3097

Special powers - Issue of search warrants -Contents of information or application for issue of - [See Criminal Law - Topic 3093 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 3105

Special powers - Issue of search warrants -Privileged or confidential documents - [See Criminal Law - Topic 3093 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 3113

Special powers - Setting aside search warrants - General - Scope of review - An accused sought certiorari to quash a search warrant - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "the question is not whether the judge should have issued the warrant in this case, but whether she could have issued it" - See paragraph 10.

Criminal Law - Topic 3183

Special powers - Setting aside search warrants - Grounds - Information, sufficiency of form and content - [See Criminal Law - Topic 3093 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 3190

Special powers - Setting aside search warrants - Grounds - Fishing expedition - [See Criminal Law - Topic 3093 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Saunders, [1995] O.J. No. 3621 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Barbarash (D.N.), [1998] B.C.T.C. Uned. J39 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Church of Scientology and Zaharia (1987), 18 O.A.C. 321; 31 C.C.C.(3d) 449 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1989] 1 S.C.R. vii; 101 N.R. 237; 36 O.A.C. 217, refd to. [para. 10].

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; 149 C.C.C.(3d) 449; 2000 SCC 65, refd to. [para. 10].

Alder and Entrepreneur Investments Ltd. et al. v. Alberta (Attorney General), Thurgood and Smilgis (1977), 5 A.R. 473; 37 C.C.C.(2d) 234 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Brosseau (F.D.) (2001), 305 A.R. 1 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Malone (1984), 2 O.A.C. 321; 11 C.C.C.(3d) 34 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1984), 55 N.R. 160; 3 O.A.C. 319; 11 C.C.C.(3d) 34 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Trottier et al., [1966] 4 C.C.C. 321 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Bird Construction Co. v. Alberta (Attorney General), [1966] 2 C.C.C. 137 (Alta. T.D.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Read; Ex parte Bird Construction Co. - see Bird Construction Co. v. Alberta (Attorney General).

Royal American Shows Inc. v. R., [1975] 6 W.W.R. 571 (Alta. T.D.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Spitzer (1984), 36 Sask.R. 146; 15 C.C.C.(3d) 98 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 17].

Regency Realties Inc. v. Loranger (1961), 36 C.R. 291 (Que. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Solloway Mills & Co. (1930), 53 C.C.C. 261 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Lubell (1973), 11 C.C.C.(2d) 188 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 24].

Hudson's Bay Co. v. Director of Investigation and Research, Competition Act et al. (1992), 42 C.P.R.(3d) 435 (Gen. Div.), affd. (1992), 58 O.A.C. 7; 10 O.R.(3d) 89 (C.A.), leave to appeal dismissed, [1993] 3 S.C.R. vi; 163 N.R. 79; 67 O.A.C. 158, refd to. [para. 25].

A.M. v. Ryan, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 157; 207 N.R. 81; 85 B.C.A.C. 81; 138 W.A.C. 81; 143 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 29 B.C.L.R.(3d) 133; [1997] 4 W.W.R. 1, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Gruenke, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 263; 130 N.R. 161; 75 Man.R.(2d) 112; 6 W.A.C. 112; 67 C.C.C.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Smith (1985), 8 O.A.C. 241; 19 C.C.C.(3d) 115 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1985] 1 S.C.R. xiii; 61 N.R. 266; 11 O.A.C. 317, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. R.S. - see R. v. Smith.

R. v. Dupont (G.) (1999), 129 C.C.C.(3d) 77 (Que. C.A.), leave to appeal denied (1998), 236 N.R. 400 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 32].

Slavutych v. University of Alberta, [1976] 1 S.C.R. 254; 3 N.R. 587, 55 D.L.R.(3d) 224, refd to. [para. 32].

Slavutych v. Baker - see Slavutych v. University of Alberta.

R. v. Saunders, [1995] O.J. No. 3621 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. MacDonald (A.R.), [2000] O.T.C. 368; 80 C.R.R.(2d) 149 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 37].

Lavallee, Rackel & Heintz et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2002] 3 S.C.R. 209; 292 N.R. 296; 312 A.R. 201; 281 W.A.C. 201; 164 O.A.C. 280; 217 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 183; 651 A.P.R. 183; 216 D.L.R.(4th) 257; 167 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Gingras (1992), 120 A.R. 300; 8 W.A.C. 300; 71 C.C.C.(3d) 53 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

Baldwin v. Bauer (1980), 54 C.C.C.(2d) 85 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Harris (M.) (1994), 74 O.A.C. 398; 93 C.C.C.(3d) 478 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Yarema (1996), 27 O.R.(3d) 177 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 49].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 487(1) [para. 8]; sect. 698 [para. 48].

Counsel:

Marilena Carminati, for the Crown;

Michelle Daneliuk, for the applicant.

This application was heard on April 16, 2004, before Moreau, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment on April 26, 2004.