R. v. MacKenzie, Guptill

R. v. MacKenzie, Guptill

The provincial court judge lacks jurisdiction to quash subpoenas issued under s.698 or to entertain a party's application to excuse subpoenaed witnesses under s.700(2); s.700(2) governs the obligations of subpoenaed persons and only those persons may seek to be excused, therefore the proper remedy to challenge a subpoena is by application to a superior court (certiorari).

Citation
2024 NSPC 24
Parties
Crown: His Majesty the King; Accused: Jeremy MacKenzie; Accused: Morgan Guptill
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 April 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal — Charter S.10(b) Pre Trial Application / Pre Trial Motion to Quash Subpoenas Arising From a S.10(b) Hearing
Outcome
Court concluded it does not have jurisdiction to quash the subpoenas and will not entertain the applicant's request to excuse the subpoenaed witnesses under s.700(2); applicant must seek relief in superior court.
Legal Topics
Section 10(b) Right to Counsel, Subpoena, Section 700(2) Criminal Code, Solicitor Client Privilege, Quash Subpoena, Abuse of Process, Duty Counsel Metadata
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional/charter Evidence Procedure Professional Privilege Section 10(b) Right to Counsel Subpoena Section 700(2) Criminal Code +4 more

Case Brief

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

His Majesty the King

Crown

Jeremy MacKenzie

Accused

Morgan Guptill

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal — Charter S.10(b) Pre Trial Application / Pre Trial Motion to Quash Subpoenas Arising From a S.10(b) Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to quash subpoenas issued under s.698 Criminal Code
  2. 2 Whether a party can be excused under s.700(2) Criminal Code by an opposing party's application
  3. 3 Whether compelling Legal Aid or duty counsel to confirm communications infringes solicitor-client privilege or amounts to an abusive fishing expedition

Ratio Decidendi

The provincial court judge lacks jurisdiction to quash subpoenas issued under s.698 or to entertain a party's application to excuse subpoenaed witnesses under s.700(2); s.700(2) governs the obligations of subpoenaed persons and only those persons may seek to be excused, therefore the proper remedy to challenge a subpoena is by application to a superior court (certiorari).

Court Disposition

Court concluded it does not have jurisdiction to quash the subpoenas and will not entertain the applicant's request to excuse the subpoenaed witnesses under s.700(2); applicant must seek relief in superior court.

Orders

  • Application to quash subpoenas dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; applicant directed to seek remedy by certiorari to a superior court