R v Stinert, 2015 ABPC 4
[19] There is nothing in Criminal Code Part XVIII mandating when or how the request for a preliminary inquiry is to be made, however. In R. v. Young, 2011 BCPC 421, the court noted (at para.14): “I might also add that in a careful reading of s. 536 and the various subsections thereunder, there is nothing in there requiring that the decision to request a preliminary inquiry or not to request a preliminary inquiry must be made at any particular or given time or at the same time.” In this case, the request and filing of ‘Form A’ were undertaken the same day.
[20] In R. v. Hathway, 2005 SKPC 99 the court stressed the need to ensure that institutional resources dedicated to preliminary inquiries be used efficiently and that this need began with the initial request. The court commented (at para.62):
Sections 536.3, to 536.5 and 540(7) to 540(9) recognize the considerable time and resources devoted to preliminary inquiries and the practicality of requiring parties to, in a timely and effective fashion when requesting a preliminary inquiry, identify the issues to be addressed and the witnesses required. [emphasis added]
[21] I agree. There is much to commend the practice of identifying the issues to be litigated and witnesses to be called at the time the preliminary inquiry is requested. At the very least, so doing will assist both counsel and the court when setting an appropriate amount of time for litigation of the preliminary inquiry. Doing so will also avoid inappropriate delays brought about by failures to provide that information, even when counsel has undertaken to do so. For an example of that form of delay, see: R. v. Mulawyshyn, 2006 CanLII 17943 (ON SCDC), [2006] O.J. No.2158 (S.C.).
Aucun commentaire:
Publier un commentaire