Thatcher v. Canada (Attorney General) et al.

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Judge: Rothstein, J.
• Citation: (1996), 120 F.T.R. 116 (TD)
• Date: 14 August 1996

Thatcher v. Can. (A.G.) (1996), 120 F.T.R. 116 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Wilbert Colin Thatcher (applicant) v. The Attorney General of Canada, The Honourable Allan Rock, Minister of Justice, and the Attorney General of Saskatchewan (respondents)

(T-52-96)

Indexed As: Thatcher v. Canada (Attorney General) et al.

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Rothstein, J.

October 3, 1996.

Summary:

In 1984 Thatcher was convicted for the first degree murder of his wife. He unsuccessfully appealed the conviction to the Supreme Court of Canada. Thatcher then applied to the Minister of Justice for the "mercy of the Crown" under the Criminal Code, s. 690.

The Minister dismissed the application. Thatcher sought judicial review.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed the application.

Criminal Law - Topic 5071

Appeals - Indictable offences - Duties and powers of Minister of Justice - General - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, stated that s. 690 of the Criminal Code "codifies and delegates to the Minister of Justice the discretion of the sovereign in respect to one aspect of the royal prerogative of mercy ... Except insofar as the Charter requires, proceedings under s. 690 are not the subject of legal rights. An application for mercy is made after a convicted person has exhausted his legal rights. Therefore, although the Minister is under a duty of fairness under the Charter, the duty must be considered with regard to the fact that there is no continuing lis between the Crown and the applicant" - See paragraphs 8 and 9.

Criminal Law - Topic 5071

Appeals - Indictable offences - Duties and powers of Minister of Justice - General - Section 690 of the Criminal Code "codifies and delegates to the Minister of Justice the discretion of the sovereign in respect to one aspect of the royal prerogative of mercy" - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, reviewed the content of the Minister's duty under s. 690 - Particularly, the court stated that in exercising his discretion under s. 690, the Minister must act in good faith and conduct a meaningful review, provided that the application was not frivolous and vexatious - "The convicted person should have a reasonable opportunity to state his case. However, proceedings under s. 690 do not constitute an appeal on the merits. There is no general right of disclosure to everything considered by the Minister or his officials" - See paragraphs 13 to 15.

Criminal Law - Topic 5073

Appeals - Indictable offences - Duties and powers of Minister of Justice - Disclosure - [See second Criminal Law - Topic 5071 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5073

Appeals - Indictable offences - Duties and powers of Minister of Justice - Disclosure - In 1984 Thatcher was convicted for the first degree murder of his wife - He unsuccessfully appealed the conviction to the Supreme Court of Canada - Thatcher then applied to the Minister of Justice for the "mercy of the Crown" under the Criminal Code, s. 690 - The Minister dismissed the application - Thatcher sought judicial review - He argued that he did not have full disclosure of the information in police and prosecution files, and that the Minister based his decision on some documents not provided to him - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, reviewed the disclosure requirements of the Minister under s. 690, and dismissed the application.

Cases Noticed:

Operation Dismantle Inc. et al. v. Canada et al., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 441; 59 N.R. 1; 13 C.R.R. 287; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 481; 12 Admin. L.R. 16, refd to. [para. 6].

Henry v. Canada (Minister of Justice) (1992), 54 F.T.R. 153 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 6].

Whitley v. United States of America (1994), 75 O.A.C. 100; 94 C.C.C.(3d) 99 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

Whitley v. United States of America, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 467; 197 N.R. 169; 91 O.A.C. 121, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Wilson (R.G.) (1987), 46 Man.R.(2d) 169; 35 C.C.C.(3d) 316 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

De Freitas v. Benny, [1976] A.C. 239 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326; 130 N.R. 277; 120 A.R. 161; 8 W.A.C. 161; 68 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Wigman, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 246; 75 N.R. 51, refd to. [para. 22].

Idziak v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 631; 144 N.R. 327; 59 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 27].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 690 [para. 1].

Counsel:

Hugh Harradence, for the applicant;

Mark Kindrachuk, for the Attorney General of Canada and Allan Rock, Minister of Justice;

Graeme Mitchell, for the respondents, Attorney General of Saskatchewan.

Solicitors of Record:

Harradence, Longworth, Logue & Harradence, Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, for the applicant;

Mark Kindrachuk, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, for the Attorney General of Canada and Allan Rock, Minister of Justice;

Graham Mitchell, Regina, Saskatchewan, for the Attorney General of Saskatchewan;

George Thomson, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondents.

This application was heard on August 14, 1996, at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, before Rothstein, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following decision on October 3, 1996.