Supreme Court of Canada
R. v. Thompson, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1063
Her Majesty The Queen Appellant;
and
Wesley Grant Thompson Respondent.
1979: October 17; 1980: March 3.
Present: Martland, Ritchie, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz, Estey and McIntyre JJ.
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
Criminal law—Court clerk unable to locate informations on date of scheduled appearance—No action taken by Court on charges—Informations later located elsewhere with another magistrate—Accused summoned to appear at later date—Objection taken to jurisdiction of Court—Loss of jurisdiction.
R. v. Krannenburg, 1980 CanLII 179 (SCC), [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1053, followed.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Appeal for the Northwest Territories allowing an appeal from a decision of Tallis J.1 dismissing the respondent’s application for an order of prohibition. Appeal dismissed.
E.G. Ewaschuk, Q.C., and R. Fainstein, for the appellant.
Barrie Chivers, for the respondent.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by
DICKSON J.—The judgment in R. v. Krannenburg, delivered concurrently, determines the present appeal. The facts in the two cases are different, but the procedural question is common to both.
Facts
In the instant case, the respondent was charged with (i) failing to comply with a demand made by a peace officer to provide a sample of his breath; and (ii) driving while impaired. On the appointed date, he appeared before the magistrate in Hay River, Northwest Territories. Paragraph 9 of the agreed statement of facts reads:
THAT at that time, the Clerk could not locate the informations, that the informations were not present in
[Page 1064]
Court and that no action of any nature whatsoever was taken by the Court on the charges.
Nothing was done. The informations were missing. It later developed that they were in the possession of another magistrate in Yellowknife. When the respondent was summoned to appear at a later date, objection was taken to the jurisdiction of the Court.
The Court of Appeal of the Northwest Territories, following the judgment of the Alberta Appellate Division in Krannenburg, allowed the appeal of the accused from the decision of Tallis J.
Disposition
I would dismiss the appeal. Pursuant to the order granting leave to appeal to this Court, the appellant will pay the costs of the respondent on a solicitor and client basis.
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Solicitor for the appellant: E.G. Ewaschuk, Ottawa.
Solicitor for the respondent: A.B.C. Chivers, Ottawa.
Footnotes
- (1978), 1978 CanLII 2468 (NWT SC), 38 C.C.C. (2d) 498.