R. v. McDonald

R. v. McDonald

The court defined 'consultation' broadly as communications between parties concerning the asserted right—encompassing non‑face‑to‑face exchanges—and treated such consultations as extending from post‑Sparrow to the date of the alleged offence; the court declined to make further preliminary rulings on the full scope of without‑prejudice privilege, noting that the law on privilege is well settled.

Citation
2003 NSPC 34
Parties
Prosecution: Her Majesty the Queen; Defendant: Alexander P. McDonald; Defendant: Chad Robinson; Defendant: Holly Lynn McDonald; Defendant: Leon Russell Robinson; Defendant: Andrew S. Robinson; Defendant: Mark Lawrence Howe; Defendant: Peter Allen Paul; Defendant: John Peter Paul; Defendant: Vandora Lee Paul; Defendant: Genevieve R. Johnson
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 July 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Voir Dire/application for Directions / Pre Trial: Application for Directions Following Voir Dire
Outcome
Application for directions partially answered: court provided a broad definitional ruling on 'consultation' and its temporal scope but refused to make additional preliminary rulings on the extent of without‑prejudice privilege.
Legal Topics
Consultation, Without Prejudice Privilege, Admissibility of Communications, Voir Dire, Temporal Scope Post Sparrow/post Marshall
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Aboriginal Law Procedural Law Consultation Without Prejudice Privilege Admissibility of Communications Voir Dire +1 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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Prosecution

Alexander P. McDonald

Defendant

Chad Robinson

Defendant

Holly Lynn McDonald

Defendant

Leon Russell Robinson

Defendant

Andrew S. Robinson

Defendant

Mark Lawrence Howe

Defendant

Peter Allen Paul

Defendant

John Peter Paul

Defendant

Vandora Lee Paul

Defendant

Genevieve R. Johnson

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Voir Dire/application for Directions / Pre Trial: Application for Directions Following Voir Dire

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the formal-common-intention test for admissibility of "discussions and agreements" applies to consultations
  2. 2 Whether the test covers informal communications (letters, e-mails, telephone calls) as well as meetings
  3. 3 Whether the exclusionary test applies to Crown-originated communications as well as First Nations communications

Ratio Decidendi

The court defined 'consultation' broadly as communications between parties concerning the asserted right—encompassing non‑face‑to‑face exchanges—and treated such consultations as extending from post‑Sparrow to the date of the alleged offence; the court declined to make further preliminary rulings on the full scope of without‑prejudice privilege, noting that the law on privilege is well settled.

Court Disposition

Application for directions partially answered: court provided a broad definitional ruling on 'consultation' and its temporal scope but refused to make additional preliminary rulings on the extent of without‑prejudice privilege.