R. v. Zeolkowski, (1989) 95 N.R. 149 (SCC)

• Judge: Wilson, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier and Cory, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: March 15, 1989
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1989), 95 N.R. 149 (SCC);[1989] 1 SCR 1378;58 Man R (2d) 63;69 CR (3d) 281;[1989] CarswellMan 162;50 CCC (3d) 566;[1989] SCJ No 50 (QL);1989 CanLII 72 (SCC);8 WCB (2d) 459;[1989] ACS no 50;JE 89-827;95 NR 149;[1989] 4 WWR 385;61 DLR (4th) 725

R. v. Zeolkowski (1989), 95 N.R. 149 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Her Majesty the Queen v. Gary Zeolkowski

(20395)

Indexed As: R. v. Zeolkowski

Supreme Court of Canada

Wilson, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier and Cory, JJ.

May 18, 1989.

Summary:

A police officer applied for an order prohibiting Zeolkowski from possessing firearms pursuant to s. 98(4) of the Criminal Code. The police officer planned to testify that Zeolkowski threatened his wife and that the wife believed Zeolkowski would use a weapon against her. Zeolkowski's counsel argued that such evidence was not admissible under the hearsay rule.

The Manitoba Provincial Court held that the evidence was inadmissible. The Crown appealed.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported in [1986] 6 W. W.R. 698; 44 Man.R.(2d) 123, dismissed the appeal. The Crown appealed.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal, in a decision reported in [1987] 3 W.W.R. 739; 46 Man.R.(2d) 40, Monnin, C.J.M., dissenting, dismissed the appeal. The Court of Appeal held that the rules of evidence as they generally applied to judicial proceedings applied to a firearms prohibition hearing under s. 98(6) of the Code. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal held that hearsay evidence on such a hearing was inadmissible. The Crown appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal. The Supreme Court held that hearsay evidence was admissible at a firearms prohibition hearing under s. 98(6) unless such evidence was irrelevant.

Criminal Law - Topic 5799

Punishments (sentence) - Prohibition orders - Firearms - Evidence - The Supreme Court of Canada held that at a hearing for a firearms prohibition order under s. 98(6) of the Criminal Code, the presiding Provincial Court judge should not strictly apply the rules of evidence - The court held that hearsay evidence was admissible at such a hearing, provided it was relevant as found by the Provincial Court judge - See paragraphs 16, 18.

Criminal Law - Topic 5799

Punishments (sentence) - Prohibition orders - Firearms - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that at a hearing for a firearms prohibition order under s. 98(6) of the Criminal Code, the burden on the Crown is not that of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but simply proof on a balance of probabilities - See paragraph 17.

Words and Phrases

All relevant evidence - The Supreme Court of Canada defined the phrase "all relevant evidence" found in s. 98(6) of the Criminal Code, to include all facts which are logically probative of the issue - See paragraphs 18 to 19.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. McWhirter (1982), 51 N.S.R.(2d) 181; 102 A.P.R. 181, folld. [para. 7].

R. v. Cardinal (1980), 22 A.R. 241; 52 C.C.C.(2d) 269 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Anderson (1981), 59 C.C.C.(2d) 439, refd to. [para. 12].

Unterreiner v. The Queen (1980), 51 C.C.C.(2d) 373 (Ont. Co. Ct.), folld. [para. 14].

R. v. Dhillon (1981), 64 C.C.C.(2d) 483 (B.C. Co. Ct.), folld. [para. 14].

R. v. Linder (1980), 5 W.C.B. 86 (Ont. Co. Ct.), not folld. [para. 14].

Creusot, Re (1987), 62 Sask.R. 112 (Prov. Ct.), not folld. [para. 14].

Eccles v. Bourque et al., [1975] 2 S.C.R. 739; 3 N.R. 259, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276; 56 C.R.(3d) 193; [1987] 3 W.W.R. 699; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 508, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Abbey, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 24; 43 N.R. 30, refd to. [para. 18].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 98(4) [paras. 3, 8, 10, 13, 16]; sect. 98(5), sect. 98(9) [para. 10]; sect. 98(6) [paras. 2, 5-8, 10, 13-16, 18-19]; sect. 98(7) [paras. 10, 14, 19]; sect. 98(1), sect. 98(12) [para. 11]; sect. 104 [paras. 9, 19]; sect. 104(6) [paras. 9-10].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 100(6) [para. 2].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Hawley, Canadian Firearms Law, p. 2 [para. 12].

Scarff, Evaluation of the Canadian Gun Control Legislation: Final Report, pp. 60 [para. 3]; 11 [para. 14].

Cross on Evidence (6th Ed. 1985), pp. 49, 58 [para. 18].

Thayer, Presumptions and the Law of Evidence (1889), 3 Harv. L. Rev. 141, p. 144 [para. 18].

Wigmore on Evidence (Tillers Rev. 1983), vol. 1, p. 689, para. 12 [para. 18].

Driedger, Construction of Statutes (2nd Ed. 1983), p. 93 [para. 19].

Counsel:

J.G.B. Dangerfield, Q.C., for the appellant;

M.J. Manko, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Department of the Attorney General, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the appellant;

Manko, Shypit & Associates, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the respondent.

This appeal was head before Wilson, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier and Cory, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada, on March 15, 1989. The decision of the Supreme Court was delivered on May 18, 1989, by Sopinka, J., in both official languages.