R. v. Ellis, 2009 ONCA 483 (CanLII)
Lien vers la décision
[38] In my view, “territorial jurisdiction” in s. 504 of the Criminal Code refers to the entire province of Ontario.
[39] Pursuant to s. 17(1) of the Justices of the Peace Act, justices have jurisdiction throughout Ontario. The fact that the Courts of Justice Act divides Ontario into regions for administrative purposes does not alter the jurisdiction conferred on justices by s. 504 of the Criminal Code. As Aitken J. stated in Hackett at para. 15, “[t]he regions created under the Courts of Justice Act are created for administrative purposes related to the administration of justice in the province; they are not created for jurisdictional purposes.”
[40] Contrary to the Crown’s submission, interpreting “territorial jurisdiction” in s. 504 as the entire province of Ontario does not offend the principles of statutory interpretation. The Criminal Code is federal legislation, governing all of the provinces and territories. Adopting one interpretation for one province does not dictate such a result elsewhere in the country. In other parts of Canada, where legislative schemes governing the systems of court may be different, “territorial jurisdiction” may well have a different meaning. In my view, the phrase “territorial jurisdiction” in s. 504, like the definition of “territorial division” in s. 2 of the Criminal Code, provides the flexibility necessary to accommodate provincial and territorial differences: see Hackett at para. 10. Accordingly, interpreting “territorial jurisdiction” in s. 504 to mean the province of Ontario does not necessarily render that phrase redundant simply because the word “province” is used elsewhere in that section.
[43] I agree with the Crown that there are good administrative reasons to have cases that arise in a particular region tried in that region. However, I do not accept that interpreting “territorial jurisdiction” as the province of Ontario for the purposes of s. 504 of the Criminal Code offends this principle. The fact that an information is received in a particular region does not mean that any resulting criminal trial must take place in that region. Indeed, as Gentles makes clear, it does not necessarily mean that a pre-inquiry must proceed in that region.
[48] Finally, to the extent that the Crown’s opposition to a broad interpretation of “territorial jurisdiction” in s. 504 is based on a concern about forum shopping, I would simply add this. Section 504 is administrative in nature – as long as the preconditions are met, the justice must receive the information. Any concerns about forum shopping can surely be addressed at a later stage in the process: see Gentles at paras. 21, 33.
Rechercher sur ce blogue
S'abonner à :
Publier des commentaires (Atom)
Le dédommagement à la victime doit toujours être envisagé lors de la détermination de la peine
Celui qui propose d'acheter une arme à feu ou de la drogue ne peut pas être reconnu coupable de trafic de cette chose
R. v. Bienvenue, 2016 ONCA 865 Lien vers la décision [ 5 ] In Greyeyes v. The Queen (1997), 1997 CanLII 313 (SCC) , 116 C.C.C. ...
-
Marcotte c. R., 2017 QCCS 62 (CanLII) Lien vers la décision [ 32 ] Les motifs raisonnables de croire sont définis comme étant ...
-
Desjardins c. R., 2010 QCCA 1947 (CanLII) Lien vers la décision [ 24 ] L' article 490 C.cr . prévoit un régime pour ...
-
R. c. Allard, 2014 QCCQ 13779 (CanLII) Lien vers la décision [ 80 ] Quant au chef concernant la possession d'une arme prohi...
Aucun commentaire:
Publier un commentaire