R. v. Wanner (L.), 2002 ABQB 978

• Judge: Wilson, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: October 03, 2002
• Citations: 2002 ABQB 978;(2002), 332 A.R. 210 (QB)

R. v. Wanner (L.) (2002), 332 A.R. 210 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2002] A.R. TBEd. NO.082

Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. Lance Wanner (respondent)

(Action No. 020261673S1; 2002 ABQB 978)

Indexed As: R. v. Wanner (L.)

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Wilson, J.

November 14, 2002.

Summary:

Wanner was charged with a Highway Traffic Act offence. Wanner objected to the introduction of a certificate of motor vehicle registration on the basis that he had not been given Notice of Intention in accordance with s. 28 of the Canada Evidence Act and it had not been disclosed to him despite a disclosure request. A Commissioner allowed the objection and dismissed the charge. The Crown appealed.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.

Criminal Law - Topic 4505

Procedure - Trial - Special duties of Crown - Duty to disclose evidence prior to trial - Wanner was charged with a Highway Traffic Act offence - Wanner objected to the introduction of a certificate of motor vehicle registration on the basis that it had not been disclosed to him despite a disclosure request - A Commissioner allowed the objection and dismissed the charge - The Crown appealed - The accused argued that the non-disclosure should be fatal to the Crown's case - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial - The usual remedy for non-disclosure was an adjournment or a mistrial - An acquittal or permanent stay was rare - See paragraph 9.

Motor Vehicles - Topic 4203

Offences - Evidence and proof - Documents - Admissibility - Notice of offer of -Wanner was charged with a Highway Traffic Act offence - Wanner objected to the Crown's introduction of a certificate of motor vehicle registration issued under the Motor Vehicle Administration Act on the basis that he had not been given Notice of Intention in accordance with s. 28 of the Canada Evidence Act - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that Crown did not have to comply with s. 28 as the Motor Vehicle Administration Act contained its own sections dealing with the admissibility of the certificate - See paragraphs 4 to 8.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Yerxa (1978), 21 N.B.R.(2d) 569; 37 A.P.R. 569; 42 C.C.C.(2d) 177 (C.A.), appld. [para. 5].

R. v. Wasylyniuk, [1981] 6 W.W.R. 684; 13 Sask.R. 163 (Sask. C.A.), affing. [1981] 6 W.W.R. 673; 12 Sask.R. 442 (Dist. Ct.), appld. [para. 5].

R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326; 130 N.R. 277; 120 A.R. 161; 8 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Kutynec (1992), 52 O.A.C. 59; 7 O.R.(3d) 277 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Petten (A.G.) (1993), 110 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 84; 346 A.P.R. 84; 21 C.R.(4th) 81 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Biscette (S.) (1995), 169 A.R. 81; 97 W.A.C. 81; 99 C.C.C.(3d) 326 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

Statutes Noticed:

Canada Evidence Act, R.S.C. 1985, E-10, sect. 28 [para. 2].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canada, Federal/Provincial Task Force on Uniform Rules of Evidence, Report of (1982), p. 386 [para. 7].

Counsel:

T. Sarkar, for the appellant;

Kenneth W. Penonzek, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on October 3, 2002, before Wilson, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following decision on November 14, 2002.