R. v. Heeringa
The appeal is allowed and the costs order is set aside because the bail review judge did not find a Charter breach, the conduct of the Crown and police did not reach the level warranting costs and the respondent suffered no prejudice; an adjournment was offered and refused and the Crown was not obliged to adduce new...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C39965
- Parties
- Appellant: Her Majesty the Queen; Respondent: Richard J. Heeringa
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 13 January 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Appeal From Costs Order of the Superior Court of Justice (bail Review)
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; costs order set aside
- Legal Topics
- Bail Review, Costs, Disclosure, Police and Crown Conduct
- 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
Her Majesty the Queen
Appellant
Richard J. Heeringa
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal From Costs Order of the Superior Court of Justice (bail Review)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the conduct of the Crown and police warranted an award of costs against the Crown
- 2 Whether a Charter breach was made out at the bail review
- 3 Whether the respondent suffered prejudice warranting costs
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal is allowed and the costs order is set aside because the bail review judge did not find a Charter breach, the conduct of the Crown and police did not reach the level warranting costs and the respondent suffered no prejudice; an adjournment was offered and refused and the Crown was not obliged to adduce new evidence to seek review of a release order.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; costs order set aside
Orders
- Appeal allowed
- Costs order of Justice Kenneth A. Langdon dated April 11, 2003 set aside
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Heeringa Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2004-01-13 Docket numbers C39965 Judges Weiler, Karen Merle Magnuson; Moldaver, Michael James; Armstrong, Robert Patrick Subject Criminal Decision Content DATE: 20040113 DOCKET: C39965 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Appellant) - and - RICHARD J. HEERINGA (Respondent) BEFORE: WEILER, MOLDAVER and ARMSTRONG JJ.A. COUNSEL: Benita Wassenaar for the appellant Timothy E. Breen for the respondent HEARD & ENDORSED: January 9, 2004 On appeal from the costs order of Justice Kenneth A. Langdon of the Superior Court of Justice dated April 11, 2003. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] The bail review judge did not find a Charter breach and while the conduct of the Crown and the police may have been sloppy, it did not reach a level that would warrant the imposition of costs against the Crown. The respondent suffered no prejudice whatsoever; the matter was stood down to give him and his counsel disclosure; an adjournment was offered and refused. We note as well that despite comments from the bail review judge and counsel for the respondent that the review hearing was a waste of time because the Crown had failed to provide any "new material evidence", we would simply point out that there was no requirement on the Crown to adduce new evidence in order to have the release order reviewed. [2] Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the costs order is set aside. "K.M. Weiler J.A." "M. J. Moldaver J.A." [3] I dissent. [4] In my view the conduct of the police officer in this case went beyond mere sloppiness. The main purpose, if not the whole purpose, of the bail review was to tender new evidence which was contained in the victim's statement. The police officer did not bring the statement to court at the time of the bail review. I believe the bail review judge was entitled to make the costs order on the record before him. I would not interfere. "Robert P. Armstrong J.A."