R. v. Yelle (J.) et al., 2003 ABPC 201

• Judge: Fradsham, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: November 25, 2003
• Citations: 2003 ABPC 201;(2003), 347 A.R. 1 (PC)

R. v. Yelle (J.) (2003), 347 A.R. 1 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] A.R. TBEd. NO.098

Her Majesty The Queen v. James Yelle, Thomas Viccars and Margaret Norman

(06352777P101001 to 01007; 01018 to 01028; 02008 to 02010; 02018 to 02028; 03011 to 03017; 03022 to 03028; 2003 ABPC 201)

Indexed As: R. v. Yelle (J.) et al.

Alberta Provincial Court

Fradsham, P.C.J.

November 25, 2003.

Summary:

The accused were charged with various offences under the Income Tax Act and Criminal Code. In the middle of their trial, the accused applied for a declaration that the delay occasioned by the Crown's unsuccessful application for prohibition (brought during the trial) violated their s. 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The Alberta Provincial Court held that the accused's s. 11(b) Charter rights were denied. This was one of those clearest of cases where appropriate remedy under s. 24(1) of the Charter was a stay of proceedings.

Civil Rights - Topic 3265

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Speedy trial - Accused's right to - What constitutes "within a reasonable time" - The accused, charged with various Income Tax Act and Criminal Code offences, applied to exclude certain evidence on the ground of Charter rights denial - The Crown applied to dismiss the Charter challenge on the ground that it was res judicata - The Crown's application was dismissed - The trial was suspended because the Crown applied for prohibition with certiorari in aid, challenging the decision not to dismiss the Charter application - The Crown's application was unsuccessful - The trial was rescheduled for continuation - The delay caused by the Crown's application, which was doomed to fail, was 357 days, of which only seven days was waived by the accused - The Alberta Provincial Court held that the 350 day delay, which was caused by Crown conduct and not part of the inherent time requirements of the case, denied the accused's s. 11(b) Charter rights to be tried within a reasonable time - Notwithstanding the lack of direct evidence of prejudice, the court inferred prejudice and granted a stay of proceedings.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Byron (2001), 156 Man.R.(2d) 154; 246 W.A.C. 154; 156 C.C.C. (3d) 312 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 1, footnote 1].

R. v. Hosack (1988), 85 A.R. 98 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Askov, Hussey, Melo and Gugliotta (1990), 113 N.R. 241; 42 O.A.C. 81; 59 C.C.C.(3d) 449 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Mills (1986), 67 N.R. 241; 16 O.A.C. 81 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 16, footnote 6].

R. v. Rahey (1987), 75 N.R. 81; 78 N.S.R.(2d) 183; 193 A.P.R. 183; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 289 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 16, footnote 6].

R. v. Conway (1989), 96 N.R. 241; 34 O.A.C. 165 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 16, footnote 6].

R. v. Morin (1992), 134 N.R. 321; 53 O.A.C. 241 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. MacDougall (P.A.) (1998), 231 N.R. 147; 168 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 83; 517 A.P.R. 83 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Philip (K.) (1993), 60 O.A.C. 391 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Sander (S.) (1995), 58 B.C.A.C. 115; 96 W.A.C. 115; 98 C.C.C.(3d) 564 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Smith (M.H.) (1989), 102 N.R. 205; 63 Man.R.(2d) 81 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 26, footnote 10].

R. v. Chan (A.) et al. (2003) 342 A.R. 201 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 26, footnote 10].

R. v. Heikel and Sutton (1992), 125 A.R. 298; 14 W.A.C. 298 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27, footnote 11].

R. v. Koruz et al. (1992), 125 A.R. 161; 14 W.A.C. 161 (C.A.), affd. (1993), 150 N.R. 303; 135 A.R. 335; 33 W.A.C. 335 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 29, footnote 12].

R. v. Sapara (J.) (2001), 277 A.R. 357; 242 W.A.C. 357 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Allen (H.D.) (1996), 92 O.A.C. 345 (C.A.), affd. (1997), 220 N.R. 67; 104 O.A.C. 237 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Bennett (1991), 46 O.A.C. 99 (C.A.), affd. (1992), 138 N.R. 388; 54 O.A.C. 350 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. 974649 Ontario Inc. (2001), 154 O.A.C. 345 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

Doucet-Boudreau et al. v. Nova Scotia (Minister of Education) et al. (2003), 312 N.R. 1; 218 N.S.R.(2d) 311; 687 A.P.R. 311 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Holt (1991), 117 A.R. 218; 2 W.A.C. 218 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Dziatkewich (L.K.) (2001), 300 A.R. 182 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 38].

Counsel:

R. Savage, for the Crown;

L.W. Scott, Q.C., for the accused, Yelle and Norman;

J.J. Markey, for the accused, Viccars.

This application was heard before Fradsham, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on November 25, 2003.