R. v. MacKenzie

R. v. MacKenzie

Court found there was a disclosure violation because there was a reasonable possibility the undisclosed diary notes were relevant, but the violation did not produce irreparable prejudice nor was it a clearest-of-cases warranting a stay given the circumstances and defence counsel's lack of diligence; remedy ordered was production of the notes and re-opening of the Crown's case to permit further cross-examination rather than a stay.

Citation
2011 NSPC 58
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Defendant: Gerald J. MacKenzie
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Summary Conviction (income Tax Act S.238(1)) / Trial Motion for Stay Under S.24(1) Charter (disclosure)
Outcome
Charter motion for stay denied
Legal Topics
Disclosure Obligations, Charter S.24(1) Remedy, Stay of Proceedings, Full Answer and Defence, Disclosure Diligence
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Tax Law Procedural Law Disclosure Obligations Charter S.24(1) Remedy Stay of Proceedings Full Answer and Defence +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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Gerald J. MacKenzie

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Summary Conviction (income Tax Act S.238(1)) / Trial Motion for Stay Under S.24(1) Charter (disclosure)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Crown non-disclosure of witness diary notes violated the accused's right to make full answer and defence
  2. 2 Whether the non-disclosure caused irreparable prejudice warranting a stay under s.24(1) of the Charter
  3. 3 Whether defence counsel exercised due diligence in pursuing disclosure and in responding when the notes surfaced

Ratio Decidendi

Court found there was a disclosure violation because there was a reasonable possibility the undisclosed diary notes were relevant, but the violation did not produce irreparable prejudice nor was it a clearest-of-cases warranting a stay given the circumstances and defence counsel's lack of diligence; remedy ordered was production of the notes and re-opening of the Crown's case to permit further cross-examination rather than a stay.

Court Disposition

Charter motion for stay denied

Orders

  • Production of the field officer's diary notes to defence
  • Re-opening of the trial to permit the defendant to re-cross-examine Ms. Delaney