R. v. Vidovic (M.), (2013) 576 A.R. 228 (PC)

• Judge: Allen, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: November 22, 2013
• Citations: (2013), 576 A.R. 228 (PC);2013 ABPC 310

R. v. Vidovic (M.) (2013), 576 A.R. 228 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2013] A.R. TBEd. DE.041

Her Majesty the Queen v. Mladen Vidovic (accused)

(111321113P1; 2013 ABPC 310)

Indexed As: R. v. Vidovic (M.)

Alberta Provincial Court

Allen, P.C.J.

November 22, 2013.

Summary:

The accused was charged with three counts of assault respecting an incident in which security guards attempted to evict him from a casino. The accused argued that he had acted in self-defence or in defence of his friend. He sought a stay of proceedings on the grounds that his arrest by a police officer following the alleged assaults constituted an infringement of his ss. 7 and 9 Charter rights. The accused was also charged with one count of failing to appear.

The Alberta Provincial Court found the accused guilty of all three assault charges, and not guilty of failing to appear. The court found that the accused's ss. 7 and 9 Charter rights were infringed, but declined to issue a stay of proceedings. The police officer's conduct would be taken into account during sentencing.

Civil Rights - Topic 3603

Detention and imprisonment - Detention - What constitutes arbitrary detention - A police officer went to a casino to investigate an altercation between a patron (Vidovic) and several security guards - Vidovic was arrested and charged with three counts of assault - Vidovic provided the officer with photo identification, but the officer retained him in custody until his fingerprint records were obtained - Vidovic was in police custody for four hours - He sought a stay of proceedings on the grounds that his ss. 7 and 9 Charter rights were violated because the officer did not follow the procedure set out in s. 495 of the Criminal Code in arresting him - The Alberta Provincial Court held that Vidovic was arbitrarily detained - The officer did not reflect upon why Vidovic's photo identification was insufficient - He demanded conclusive proof by fingerprinting before he would consider release - In taking this position, the officer acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner, which resulted in Vidovic being retained in custody longer than necessary - However, a stay of proceedings was not warranted - The infringement was procedural in nature and did not affect trial fairness - The prejudice created by the officer could be taken into account in sentencing - See paragraphs 322 to 337 and 353 to 356.

Civil Rights - Topic 8373

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Variation of sentence - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3603 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8374

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Stay of proceedings - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3603 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 34

General principles - Mens rea or intention - Recklessness - [See Criminal Law - Topic 3268 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 39.4

General principles - Mens rea or intention - Doctrine of wilful blindness - [See Criminal Law - Topic 3268 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 181

General principles - Identification of arrested persons - General - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3603 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 239

General principles - Statutory defences or exceptions - Self-defence (incl. preventing assault) - [See all Criminal Law - Topic 1420 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 1420

Offences against person and reputation - Assaults - Defence - Self-defence - Vidovic and Ajanovic went to a casino - A security guard (Mock) was advised that the pair were intoxicated - Mock approached Vidovic, touched him briefly on the shoulder, and told him to leave - Vidovic objected - Mock placed his hand on Vidovic's back for one second in an attempt to move him along - Vidovic shoved Mock forcefully - When Ajanovic tried to intervene, Mock tackled him - Vidovic kicked Mock in the jaw - When two other security guards attempted to apprehend Vidovic, he kicked or punched them in the face - Vidovic was charged with three counts of assault - He argued that he acted in self-defence - The Alberta Provincial Court, in considering s. 34(1) of the Criminal Code (prior to March 2013 amendments), found that Vidovic could not rely on that section because he was not being unlawfully assaulted when he shoved Mock - Mock was entitled to evict Vidovic from the casino, without providing a reason for the eviction, pursuant to the common law, the Trespass to Premises Act, and the Gaming and Liquor Act - Mock's use of force to accomplish this was consistent with the common law principles, and the powers given to him under the common law, provincial statutes, and the Criminal Code - A similar finding applied respecting the assault on the other two guards, who had witnessed Vidovic assault Mock and were attempting to effect their power of citizen's arrest - See paragraphs 102 to 149.

Criminal Law - Topic 1420

Offences against person and reputation - Assaults - Defence - Self-defence - Vidovic and Ajanovic went to a casino - A security guard (Mock) was advised that the pair were intoxicated - Mock approached Vidovic, touched him briefly on the shoulder, and told him to leave - Vidovic objected - Mock placed his hand on Vidovic's back for one second in an attempt to move him along - Vidovic shoved Mock forcefully - When Ajanovic tried to intervene, Mock tackled him - Vidovic kicked Mock in the jaw - When two other security guards attempted to apprehend Vidovic, he kicked or punched them in the face - Vidovic was charged with three counts of assault - He argued that he acted in self-defence - The Alberta Provincial Court, in considering s. 34(1) of the Criminal Code (prior to March 2013 amendments), found that Vidovic could not rely on that section because the force he used was not proportionate - The force employed by Mock and the threat he posed to Vidovic was minimal - Vidovic's use of force in violently pushing Mock was unreasonable - The force employed by Vidovic against the other two guards was grossly disproportionate and unreasonable in view of the threat that he perceived that he faced - See paragraphs 150 to 167.

Criminal Law - Topic 1420

Offences against person and reputation - Assaults - Defence - Self-defence - Vidovic and Ajanovic went to a casino - A security guard (Mock) was advised that the pair were intoxicated - Mock approached Vidovic, touched him briefly on the shoulder, and told him to leave - Vidovic objected - Mock placed his hand on Vidovic's back for one second in an attempt to move him along - Vidovic shoved Mock forcefully - When Ajanovic tried to intervene, Mock tackled him - Vidovic kicked Mock in the jaw - When two other security guards attempted to apprehend Vidovic, he kicked or punched them in the face - Vidovic was charged with three counts of assault - He argued that he acted in self-defence - The Alberta Provincial Court, in considering s. 37 of the Criminal Code (prior to March 2013 amendments), found that Vidovic could not rely on that section because the force he used was more than was required to prevent the assault or repetition of it - Mock incidentally touched Vidovic in an attempt to remove him - The force employed by Vidovic was grossly disproportionate - The other two guards were attempting to grab Vidovic in order to apprehend him - The kick and punches administered by Vidovic were not necessary to prevent the guards' attempts to apprehend him - See paragraphs 168 to 175.

Criminal Law - Topic 1420

Offences against person and reputation - Assaults - Defence - Self-defence - Vidovic and Ajanovic went to a casino - A security guard (Mock) was advised that the pair were intoxicated - Mock approached Vidovic, touched him briefly on the shoulder, and told him to leave - Vidovic objected - Mock placed his hand on Vidovic's back for one second in an attempt to move him along - Vidovic shoved Mock forcefully - When Ajanovic tried to intervene, Mock tackled him - Vidovic kicked Mock in the jaw - When two other security guards attempted to apprehend Vidovic, he kicked or punched them in the face - Vidovic was charged with three counts of assault - He argued that he acted in self-defence - The Alberta Provincial Court, in considering s. 34(1) of the Criminal Code (after March 2013 amendments), found that Vidovic could not rely on that section because he was not acting in defence of himself - Vidovic pushed Mock in retaliation because he was upset with being touched by Mock - This was not an act of defence or protection - His motive in assaulting the other two guards was to resist them while they tried to apprehend him - In addition, neither his forceful push of Mock nor the blows administered to the other guards were reasonable acts in the circumstances - Vidovic was larger than any of the guards - He used greatly disproportionate force in response to the minimal force that was being used to evict him - See paragraphs 203 to 213.

Criminal Law - Topic 1423

Offences against person and reputation - Assaults - Defence - Defence of others - Vidovic and Ajanovic went to a casino - A security guard (Mock) was advised that the pair were intoxicated - Mock approached Vidovic, touched him briefly on the shoulder, and told him to leave - Vidovic objected - Mock placed his hand on Vidovic's back for one second in an attempt to move him along - Vidovic shoved Mock forcefully - When Ajanovic tried to intervene, Mock tackled him and placed his hands in the area of Ajanovic's neck - Vidovic kicked Mock in the jaw - Vidovic was charged with assault - He argued that he acted in defence of Ajanovic pursuant to s. 37 of the Criminal Code (prior to March 2013 amendments) - The Alberta Provincial Court found that Vidovic could not rely on s. 37 because Ajanovic, as a close friend who had accompanied Vidovic to a casino, was not someone "under his protection" - Vidovic could rely on s. 27, because he reasonably perceived that Mock was choking and causing serious harm to Ajanovic - Therefore, the kicking of Mock did not constitute an assault - However, Vidovic pushed Mock before Ajanovic intervened and this use of force was not reasonable or proportionate - Vidovic was therefore guilty of assault related to the push - See paragraphs 176 to 185.

Criminal Law - Topic 1423

Offences against person and reputation - Assaults - Defence - Defence of others - Vidovic and Ajanovic went to a casino - A security guard (Mock) was advised that the pair were intoxicated - Mock approached Vidovic, touched him briefly on the shoulder, and told him to leave - Vidovic objected - Mock placed his hand on Vidovic's back for one second in an attempt to move him along - Vidovic shoved Mock forcefully - When Ajanovic tried to intervene, Mock tackled him and placed his hands in the area of Ajanovic's neck - Vidovic kicked Mock in the jaw - Vidovic was charged with assault - He argued that he acted in defence of Ajanovic pursuant to s. 34(1)(b) of the Criminal Code (after March 2013 amendments) - The Alberta Provincial Court found that kicking Mock would not support a guilty finding for assault because the court had a reasonable doubt that Vidovic believed on reasonable grounds that force was being used against Ajanovic and that he kicked Mock in order to protect or defend Ajanovic - However, the Crown had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Vidovic was not acting in self-defence when he pushed Mock - See paragraphs 214 to 218.

Criminal Law - Topic 1428

Assaults - Expulsion of trespassers - [See first Criminal Law - Topic 1420 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 3214

Compelling appearance, detention and release - Arrest - Powers of private citizens (incl. security guards) - [See first Criminal Law - Topic 1420 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 3268

Compelling appearance, detention and release - Appearance and appearance notice - Failure to appear - General - Vidovic was charged with three counts of assault and released on a promise to appear - He failed to appear on the designated date and was charged accordingly - Vidovic testified that his failure to appear was a mistake - He did not want his ill wife to find out about the charges, so he hid the promise to appear in his garage and wrote the date he believed he had to appear on a calendar - When he realized he had written the wrong date on the calendar, one or two weeks after he was supposed to appear, he surrendered himself immediately - The Alberta Provincial Court found Vidovic not guilty of failing to appear because the Crown did not prove the required mens rea - The court stated that "The method he adopted to remind himself of the date that he was required to appear in court was clearly negligent. He should have consulted the promise to appear which contained that date. However, his negligence in record keeping does not amount to recklessness, or wilful blindness in these circumstances." - See paragraphs 274 to 280.

Criminal Law - Topic 5409

Evidence and witnesses - Witnesses - Duty of Crown to call witnesses - Vidovic and a friend went to a casino - A manager advised a security guard (Mock) that the pair were intoxicated - Mock approached Vidovic and attempted to evict him from the premises - An altercation ensued, and Vidovic was charged with assaulting three security guards - Of the three guards who were allegedly assaulted, only Mock was called as a witness - The Crown also called the investigating police officer and another security guard who was present at the time of the offences - Vidovic's position was that he had acted in self-defence - He submitted that an adverse inference should be drawn from the Crown's failure to call other witnesses who could have provided relevant testimony - The Alberta Provincial Court stated that "The failure of the Crown to call the other security guards involved in the altercation was a tactical choice justified because their testimony would have been repetitive and would not have added much because of the DVD evidence. The manager who spoke to Mr. Mock might have been useful in that she might have confirmed her instructions, if any, to Mock were. However, in my view, it is the understanding of Mr. Mock that is important and not some other person in determining the limit of his authority. Hence, it is not appropriate to draw an adverse inference because of the failure of the Crown to call any of these witnesses." - See paragraphs 244 to 249.

Evidence - Topic 2401

Special modes of proof - Presumptions - Specific presumptions - Inference from failure to call or adduce available evidence - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5409 ].

Police - Topic 3289

Powers - Identification of criminals - Fingerprinting and photographing - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3603 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Lifchus (W.) (1997), 216 N.R. 215; 118 Man.R.(2d) 218; 149 W.A.C. 218; 118 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. D.W. (1991), 122 N.R. 277; 46 O.A.C. 352; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 397 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. Hebert (D.M.), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 272; 197 N.R. 277; 77 B.C.A.C. 1; 126 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. McIntosh (B.B.), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 686; 178 N.R. 161; 79 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 59].

R. v. Dineley (S.), [2012] 3 S.C.R. 272; 436 N.R. 59; 297 O.A.C. 50; 2012 SCC 58, refd to. [para. 63].

R. v. Evans (D.J.), [2013] B.C.T.C. Uned. 462; 2013 BCSC 462, refd to. [para. 69].

R. v. Parker, [2013] O.J. No. 1755 (C.J.), refd to. [para. 70].

R. v. Simon (J.M.) (2013), 558 A.R. 384; 2013 ABQB 303, refd to. [para. 71].

R. v. Pandurevic (M.), [2013] O.T.C. Uned. 2978; 2013 ONSC 2978, refd to. [para. 72].

R. v. Carriere (D.M.) (2013), 573 A.R. 250; 2013 ABQB 645, refd to. [para. 75].

R. v. Wang (Z.), 2013 ONCJ 220, refd to. [para. 78].

R. v. Caswell (B.L.) (2013), 421 Sask.R. 312; 2013 SKPC 114, refd to. [para. 78].

R. v. I.A.O.S., 2013 BCPC 166, refd to. [para. 78].

R. v. Sanderson (W.J.), [2013] Man.R.(2d) Uned. 36; 2013 MBQB 139, refd to. [para. 78].

R. v. Urquhart, [2013] B.C.J. No. 1569 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 78].

R. v. Lavallee, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 852; 108 N.R. 321; 67 Man.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 84].

Barry and Brosseau v. Alberta Securities Commission, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 301; 93 N.R. 1; 96 A.R. 241, refd to. [para. 90].

Sibiga v. British Columbia Racing Commission, [1995] B.C.T.C. Uned. 956; 1995 CarswellBC 2009 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 109].

R. v. Peters (1971), 2 C.C.C.(2d) 336 (Ont. C.A.), affd. (1971) 2 C.C.C.(2d) 339n (S.C.C.), refd to. [paras. 113, 114].

Harrison v. Carswell, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 200; 5 N.R. 523, refd to. [para. 115].

Russo v. Ontario Jockey Club (1987), 62 O.R.(2d) 731 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 116].

R. v. Lerke (1986), 67 A.R. 390; 24 C.C.C.(3d) 129 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 117].

R. v. Asante-Mensah (D.), [2003] 2 S.C.R. 3; 306 N.R. 289; 175 O.A.C. 317; 2003 SCC 38, refd to. [para. 120].

R. v. Mohammed (L.R.) (1995), 171 A.R. 210; 31 Alta. L.R.(3d) 141 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 131].

R. v. Scopellitti (1981), 63 C.C.C.(2d) 481, refd to. [para. 142].

R. v. Baxter (1975), 27 C.C.C.(2d) 96 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 151].

R. v. Berrigan (1998), 108 B.C.A.C. 224; 176 W.A.C. 224; 127 C.C.C.(3d) 120 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 151].

R. v. Mulligan (C.) (1997), 100 O.A.C. 324; 115 C.C.C.(3d) 559 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 151].

R. v. Nelson (1992), 54 O.A.C. 14; 71 C.C.C.(3d) 449 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 151].

R. v. Onigbinde (O.) (2010), 258 O.A.C. 127; 251 C.C.C.(3d) 15 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 151].

R. v. Kong (V.), [2006] 2 S.C.R. 347; 352 N.R. 365; 401 A.R. 327; 391 W.A.C. 327; 2006 SCC 40, reving. (2005), 371 A.R. 90; 354 W.A.C. 90; 2005 ABCA 255, refd to. [paras. 157, 158].

R. v. Gunning (J.J.), [2005] 1 S.C.R. 627; 333 N.R. 286; 211 B.C.A.C. 51; 349 W.A.C. 51; 2005 SCC 27, refd to. [para. 161].

R. v. Szczerbaniwicz (G.), [2010] 1 S.C.R. 455; 401 N.R. 47; 2010 SCC 15, refd to. [para. 163].

R. v. Michaud (M.R.) et al., [2006] A.R. Uned. 625; [2007] 1 W.W.R. 678 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 176].

R. v. Webers (1994), 95 C.C.C.(3d) 334 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 176].

R. v. Bero (C.) (2000), 137 O.A.C. 336; 151 C.C.C.(3d) 545 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 224].

R. v. Cook (D.W.) (1997), 210 N.R. 197; 188 N.B.R.(2d) 161; 480 A.P.R. 161; 114 C.C.C.(3d) 481 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 226].

R. v. Jolivet (D.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 751; 254 N.R. 1; 2000 SCC 29, refd to. [para. 228].

Seneviratne v. The King, [1936] 3 All E.R. 36 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 230].

R. v. Lemay, [1952] 1 S.C.R. 232, refd to. [para. 230].

R. v. Yebes, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 168; 78 N.R. 351, refd to. [para. 230].

R. v. J.V. (1994), 91 C.C.C.(3d) 284 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 231].

R. v. Zehr (1980), 54 C.C.C.(2d) 65 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 240].

R. v. Charette (1982), 67 C.C.C.(2d) 357 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 240].

R. v. Koffman and Hirschler (1985), 10 O.A.C. 29; 20 C.C.C.(3d) 237 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 242].

R. v. Rooke (1988), 40 C.C.C.(3d) 484 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 242].

R. v. C.R.S. (1998), 172 N.S.R.(2d) 295; 524 A.P.R. 295; 133 C.C.C.(3d) 559 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 242].

R. v. Solomon (M.), [2002] O.T.C. 1042 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 242].

R. v. Lapensee (C.R.) (2009), 254 O.A.C. 154; 247 C.C.C.(3d) 21 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 242].

R. v. Marshall (D.) (2005), 201 O.A.C. 154; 251 C.C.C.(3d) 179 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [2006] S.C.R. ix; 359 N.R. 390, refd to. [para. 243].

R. v. Eby (M.N.) (2007), 415 A.R. 273; 2007 ABPC 81, refd to. [para. 266].

R. v. Bremmer (D.D.), [2006] A.R. Uned. 304 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 266].

R. v. Loutitt (E.S.) (2011), 527 A.R. 212; 284 C.C.C.(3d) 518; 2011 ABQB 545, refd to. [para. 267].

R. v. Sault Ste. Marie (City) (1978), 21 N.R. 295; 40 C.C.C.(2d) 353 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 269].

R. v. Sansregret, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 570; 58 N.R. 123; 35 Man.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 270].

R. v. La (H.K.) et al. (1997), 213 N.R. 1; 200 A.R. 81; 146 W.A.C. 81; 116 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 293].

R. v. Askov, Hussey, Melo and Gugliotta, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1199; 113 N.R. 241; 42 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 294].

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. 295].

R. v. Collins (1987), 74 N.R. 276; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 296].

R. v. Duguay, Murphy and Sevigny (1985), 8 O.A.C. 31; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 289 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 299].

R. v. Mann (P.H.), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 59; 324 N.R. 215; 187 Man.R.(2d) 1; 330 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 299].

R. v. Clayton (W.) et al., [2007] 2 S.C.R. 725; 364 N.R. 199; 227 O.A.C. 314, refd to. [para. 299].

R. v. Grant (D.), [2009] 2 S.C.R. 353; 391 N.R. 1; 253 O.A.C. 124, refd to. [para. 299].

R. v. Waterfield, [1963] 3 All E.R. 659 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 301].

R. v. Storrey, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 241; 105 N.R. 81; 37 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 312].

R. v. Sieben (1989), 99 A.R. 379 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 314].

A.M. v. Matthews et al. (2012), 545 A.R. 52; 2012 ABQB 185, refd to. [para. 316].

R. v. Tolofson, 2004 BCPC 328, refd to. [para. 318].

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, refd to. [para. 339].

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Tobiass et al., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 391; 218 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 345].

R. v. Regan (G.A.), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 297; 282 N.R. 1; 201 N.S.R.(2d) 63; 629 A.P.R. 63, refd to. [para. 347].

R. v. Zarinchang (D.) (2010), 261 O.A.C. 153; 2010 ONCA 286, refd to. [para. 350].

R. v. Nasogaluak (L.M.), [2010] 1 S.C.R. 206; 398 N.R. 107; 474 A.R. 88; 479 W.A.C. 88; 2010 SCC 6, refd to. [para. 351].

R. v. Bellusci (R.) (2012), 433 N.R. 135; 2012 SCC 44, refd to. [para. 352].

R. v. 974649 Ontario Inc. et al., [2001] 3 S.C.R. 575; 279 N.R. 345; 154 O.A.C. 345; 2001 SCC 81, refd to. [para. 360].

R. v. Robinson (C.J.) (1999), 250 A.R. 201; 213 W.A.C. 201 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 361].

R. v. S.E.L. (2012), 537 A.R. 68; 2012 ABQB 377, refd to. [para. 363].

Ward v. Vancouver (City) et al., [2010] 2 S.C.R. 28; 404 N.R. 1; 290 B.C.A.C. 222; 491 W.A.C. 222; 2010 SCC 27, refd to. [para. 363].

Statutes Noticed:

Citizen's Arrest and Self-Defence Act, S.C. 2012, c. 9, sect. 2 [para. 60].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 27 [para. 178]; sect. 34(1) [paras. 54, 187]; sect. 37 [para. 54].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canada, Department of Justice, Bill C-26 Reforms of Self Defence and Defence of Property: Technical Guide for Practitioners, generally [paras. 69, 73, et seq.]; pp. 2, 8, 9 [para. 83]; 11, 28, 29, 30 [para. 196].

McWilliams, Peter K., Canadian Criminal Evidence (4th Ed.), generally [para. 239]; para. 30.10.30 [para. 225].

Counsel:

S. Brown, for the Crown;

T.M. Engel, for the accused.

This matter was heard before Allen, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, who delivered the following decision at Edmonton, Alberta, on November 22, 2013.