R. v. Calder

R. v. Calder

The court found the Crown's late disclosure of newly discovered evidence constituted a Charter breach that prejudiced the accused's ability to make full answer and defence; the prejudice could not be cured by adjournment or other remedial orders at this advanced stage, and therefore the appropriate remedy was to declare a mistrial, relieve the accused of prior undertakings and permit re-election while denying a new preliminary inquiry.

Citation
2010 NSSC 146
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Defendant: Anne Calder
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 April 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal: Indictment for Trafficking and Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking (controlled Drugs and Substances Act) / Trial in Progress; Voir Dire and One and a Half Days of Evidence; Charter Application Under S.24(1) Heard; Oral Decision April 14, 2010; Mistrial Ordered
Outcome
Charter application granted in part: breach established; mistrial declared; accused relieved from prior agreements and undertakings; accused entitled to re-elect; preliminary inquiry not ordered; publication ban continued on new evidence and paragraph [5].
Legal Topics
Charter S.7, Charter S.11(d), Charter S.24(1) Remedies, Disclosure (stinchcombe), Late Disclosure Remedies, Mistrial, Mode of Trial Re Election
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Evidence Law Procedural Law Charter S.7 Charter S.11(d) Charter S.24(1) Remedies Disclosure (stinchcombe) +3 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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Anne Calder

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal: Indictment for Trafficking and Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking (controlled Drugs and Substances Act) / Trial in Progress; Voir Dire and One and a Half Days of Evidence; Charter Application Under S.24(1) Heard; Oral Decision April 14, 2010; Mistrial Ordered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether late disclosure of newly discovered evidence breached the accused's right to make full answer and defence under s.7 and affected s.11(d) rights
  2. 2 Whether the accused demonstrated actual prejudice from late disclosure and the causal effect on pre-trial decisions (e.g. mode of trial, admissibility agreement, undertaking to testify)
  3. 3 What remedy is appropriate for the proven prejudice: exclusion of evidence, adjournment, retrial/mistrial, or other relief

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the Crown's late disclosure of newly discovered evidence constituted a Charter breach that prejudiced the accused's ability to make full answer and defence; the prejudice could not be cured by adjournment or other remedial orders at this advanced stage, and therefore the appropriate remedy was to declare a mistrial, relieve the accused of prior undertakings and permit re-election while denying a new preliminary inquiry.

Court Disposition

Charter application granted in part: breach established; mistrial declared; accused relieved from prior agreements and undertakings; accused entitled to re-elect; preliminary inquiry not ordered; publication ban continued on new evidence and paragraph [5].

Orders

  • Mistrial declared
  • Accused relieved from previous agreements and undertakings regarding trial process and admissibility undertakings