R. v. J.L.S., 2000 BCSC 1784 (CanLII)
[7] Although this issue was not raised in argument before me, the proceedings that are now being appealed appear to be a collateral attack on the order of the Youth Court Judge which was made on January 8, 1999. It is trite law, however, that the respondent in this case may not collaterally attack the validity of the order made on January 8, 1999, after failing to avail herself of the appeal mechanisms provided. In R. v. Consolidated Maybrun Mines Ltd 1998 CanLII 820 (SCC), (1998), 123 C.C.C. (3d) 449 (S.C.C.) L’Heureux-Dubé J., for the Court, stated at paras. 2-3:
It should be noted at the outset that this Court has already spoken on the possibility of collateral attacks on the validity of court orders (R. v. Wilson, 1983 CanLII 35 (SCC), [1983] 2 S.C.R. 594, 9 C.C.C. (3d) 97; R. v. Litchfield, 1993 CanLII 44 (SCC), [1993] 4 S.C.R. 333; R. v. Sarson, 1996 CanLII 200 (SCC), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 223. In Litchfield,supra., at p. 349, Iacobucci J. stated the basis for the rule against collateral attacks on court orders as follows:
The rationale behind the rule is powerful: the rule seeks to maintain the rule of law and to preserve the repute of the administration of justice. To allow parties to govern their affairs according to their perception of matters such as the jurisdiction of the court issuing the order would result in uncertainty. Further, “the orderly and functional administration of justice” requires that court orders be considered final and binding unless they are reversed on appeal (R. v. Pastro [1988 CanLII 214 (SK CA), (1988), 42 C.C.C. (3d) 485 (Sask.C.A.)], at p. 497.
For this reason, it is also settled that, as a general rule, a superior court will not be justified in reviewing the validity of a court order in respect of which a contempt charge has been laid – see inter alia: R. v. Domm 1996 CanLII 1331 (ON CA), (1996), 31 O.R. (3d) 540, 111 C.C.C. (3d) 449 (C.A.); leave to appeal refused, [1997] 2 S.C.R. viii, 114 C.C.C. (3d) vi; Every-woman’s Health Centre Society (1988) v. Bridges 1990 CanLII 5409 (BC CA), (1990), 54 B.C.L.R. (2d) 273, 62 C.C.C. (3d) 455, 78 D.L.R. (4th) 529 (C.A.).
Aucun commentaire:
Publier un commentaire