R. v. Rose
Under Rule 21(2) the Court exercises a discretionary power to award costs, and because nothing in the prosecution's conduct nor the complexity of issues took the case out of the ordinary, the discretion was exercised to refuse costs.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2005 CMAC 4
- Parties
- Appellant: Cpl M.A. Rose; Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen
- Court
- Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 28 September 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Court Martial Appeal (criminal) / Supplementary Reasons on Costs Following Successful Appeal Against Conviction
- Outcome
- Application for costs dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Costs, Appeal, Court Martial Appeal Rules
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Cpl M.A. Rose
Appellant
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Court Martial Appeal (criminal) / Supplementary Reasons on Costs Following Successful Appeal Against Conviction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant is entitled to an award of costs under Rule 21(2) of the Court Martial Appeal Rules
- 2 Whether any conduct of the prosecution or complexity of issues justifies departure from the ordinary practice of not awarding costs
Ratio Decidendi
Under Rule 21(2) the Court exercises a discretionary power to award costs, and because nothing in the prosecution's conduct nor the complexity of issues took the case out of the ordinary, the discretion was exercised to refuse costs.
Court Disposition
Application for costs dismissed
Orders
- Application for costs dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Rose Collection Court Martial Appeal Court Date 2005-09-28 Neutral citation 2005 CMAC 4 Report citation 7 CMAR 56 File numbers CMAC-479 Decision-makers McFadyen, Elizabeth; Veit, Joanne B.; O'Reilly, James W. See also See also - R. v. Rose - 2005 CMAC 4 - 2005-05-30 Decision Content Date: 20050928 Docket: CMAC-479 Citation: 2005 CMAC 4 CORAM: McFADYEN, J.A. VEIT, J.A. O'REILLY, J.A. BETWEEN: CPL M.A. ROSE Appellant - and - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent HEARD at Edmonton, Alberta on April 8th, 2005 SUPPLEMENTARY JUDGMENT delivered at Ottawa, Ontario on September 28, 2005 SUPPLEMENTARY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: McFADYEN, J.A. CONCURRED IN BY: VEIT, J.A. O'REILLY, J.A. Date: 20050928 Docket: CMAC-479 Citation: 2005 CMAC 4 CORAM: McFADYEN, J.A. VEIT, J.A. O'REILLY, J.A. BETWEEN: CPL M.A. ROSE Appellant - and - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent SUPPLEMENTARY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT McFADYEN J.A. [1] The appellant, having succeeded in his appeal against conviction, asks this Court to award costs. [2] Under Rule 21(2) of the Court Martial Appeal Rules, the Court has discretion to award costs. Although the Rule gives the Court a broad discretion, the Court does not award costs routinely. Nothing in the conduct of this prosecution, nor in the complexity of the issues raised, takes this case out of the ordinary so as to persuade us to award costs. [3] The application for costs is dismissed. "Elizabeth McFadyen" McFADYEN J.A. I agree: " Joanne B. Veit" VEIT J.A. I agree: "James W. O'Reilly" O'REILLY J.A. COURT MARTIAL APPEAL COURT OF CANADA Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record DOCKET: CMAC-476 STYLE OF CAUSE: CPL M.A. Rose v. Her Majesty the Queen PLACE OF HEARING: Edmonton, Alberta DATE OF HEARING: April 8, 2005 SUPPLEMENTARY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: McFAYDEN J.A. CONCURRED IN BY: VEIT J.A. O'REILLY J.A. DATED: September 28, 2005 APPEARANCES BY: Mr. Marvin Bloos, Q.C. For the Applicant Major Rob Holman For the Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Mr. Marvin Bloos, Q.C. For the Applicant Beresh DePoe Cunningham 300 - 10110 107th Street Edmonton, Alberta T5J 1J4 Office of the Directorate of Military For the Respondent Prosecutions Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0K2