R. v. Sipes

R. v. Sipes

The court has jurisdiction to hear a Crown application to dismiss O'Connor applications prior to service and should exercise it in appropriate cases; the Crown bears an onerous preliminary burden to show there is no reasonable possibility the accused can demonstrate likely relevance for any requested records;...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2010 BCSC 1625
Parties
Prosecutor: Regina (The Crown); Accused / Applicant: Dale Gordon Sipes; Accused / Applicant: Leslie Podolski; Accused / Applicant: Sheldon Richard O'Donnell; Accused / Applicant: Peter Manolakos; Accused / Applicant: Douglas Corey Brownell
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 November 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal; Pre Trial Applications for Third Party Records (o'connor) / Pre Trial Application by Crown to Dismiss Defence O'connor Applications Prior to Service; Reasons for Judgment
Outcome
Crown application to dismiss defence O'Connor applications prior to service dismissed
Legal Topics
O'connor Applications, Third Party Records, Subpoena Duces Tecum, Trial Management, Disclosure (stinchcombe), Publication Ban (s.486.5)
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Evidence Procedural Law Privacy Law Correctional Institution Law O'connor Applications Third Party Records Subpoena Duces Tecum +3 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina (The Crown)

Prosecutor

Dale Gordon Sipes

Accused / Applicant

Leslie Podolski

Accused / Applicant

Sheldon Richard O'Donnell

Accused / Applicant

Peter Manolakos

Accused / Applicant

Douglas Corey Brownell

Accused / Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal; Pre Trial Applications for Third Party Records (o'connor) / Pre Trial Application by Crown to Dismiss Defence O'connor Applications Prior to Service; Reasons for Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court has jurisdiction to decide a Crown application to dismiss O'Connor applications prior to service
  2. 2 Whether the court should exercise that jurisdiction in these circumstances
  3. 3 What standard applies to a Crown preliminary application to dismiss before service

Ratio Decidendi

The court has jurisdiction to hear a Crown application to dismiss O'Connor applications prior to service and should exercise it in appropriate cases; the Crown bears an onerous preliminary burden to show there is no reasonable possibility the accused can demonstrate likely relevance for any requested records; applying that test the Crown failed, so the Crown's application is dismissed, the Notices must be served, but subpoenas need not be served until likely relevance is demonstrated and the Crown may seek permission to redact or redraft Notices.

Court Disposition

Crown application to dismiss defence O'Connor applications prior to service dismissed

Orders

  • The Crown's application is dismissed
  • Defence Notices must be served on the witnesses and relevant correctional institutions