citation: "R. v. Abdul-Hussein, 2019 ONCA 230" parties: "Her Majesty the Queen v. Ali Abdul Hussein" party_moving: "Ali Abdul Hussein" party_responding: "Her Majesty the Queen" court: "Court of Appeal for Ontario" court_abbreviation: "ONCA" jurisdiction: "Ontario" case_type: "appeal" date_judgement: "2019-03-22" date_heard: "2019-03-18" applicant:
- "Ali Abdul Hussein" applicant_counsel:
- "Ian Carter" respondent:
- "Her Majesty the Queen" respondent_counsel:
- "Katie Doherty" judge:
- "Roberts"
- "Trotter"
- "Paciocco" winning_degree_applicant: 5 winning_degree_respondent: 1 judge_bias_applicant: 0 judge_bias_respondent: 0 year: 2019 decision_number: 230 docket: "C65954" file_number: "C65954" source: "https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2019/2019onca230/2019onca230.html" legislation:
- title: "Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 139(2)" url: "https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-139.html"
- title: "Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 700(2)" url: "https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-700.html"
- title: "Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 505" url: "https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-505.html"
- title: "Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 260(1)(c)" url: "https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-260.html" case_law:
- title: "R. v. Pastro, 66 Sask. R. 241 (C.A.)" url: "https://www.canlii.org/en/sk/skca/doc/1988/1988canlii214/1988canlii214.html"
- title: "R. v. Houle, 2016 MBCA 121" url: "https://www.canlii.org/en/mb/mbca/doc/2016/2016mbca121/2016mbca121.html"
- title: "R. v. Bird, 2019 SCC 7" url: "https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2019/2019scc7/2019scc7.html"
- title: "R. v. Oliveira, 2009 ONCA 219, 243 C.C.C. (3d) 217" url: "https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2009/2009onca219/2009onca219.html"
- title: "R. v. Molina, 2008 ONCA 212, 231 C.C.C. (3d) 193" url: "https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2008/2008onca212/2008onca212.html" summary: > The appellant was a material witness to a murder and was subpoenaed to testify as a Crown witness. He fled Canada to avoid giving evidence. Although the subpoena was issued improperly by the Registrar of the Superior Court of Justice, the appellant was charged with obstructing justice under Criminal Code s. 139(2) for failing to appear as a witness. The trial judge convicted him, holding that the subpoena had to be obeyed unless set aside. The appellant appealed, arguing that the actus reus of the offence was not proved because the subpoena was invalid. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the rule against collateral attacks on court orders applies and that the appellant's wilful act of evading the subpoena had a tendency to obstruct the course of justice regardless of the subpoena's validity. interesting_citations_summary: > This decision provides important guidance on the application of the rule against collateral attacks in criminal proceedings. The court clarified that when charged with breaching a court order, a defendant cannot defend by attacking the validity of the order itself; instead, they must seek to have the order set aside through proper legal channels. The court distinguished between collateral attacks on the validity of orders and defences based on non-compliance with statutory procedural protections associated with orders. The decision emphasizes that permitting disobedience of