R. v. Mansour

R. v. Mansour Court Court of Appeal Date 1999-09-28 Citation 1999 NSCA 108 Docket CAC 155441 Judge/Registrar/Adjudicator Hallett, J. Doane (Honourable Justice) (CA); Bateman, Nancy J. (Honourable Justice) (CA); Pugsley, Ronald N. (Honourable Justice) Document Type Decision Relations Library Sheet - R. v. Mansour - 1999 NSCA 108 - 1999-09-28 - Library Sheet Decision Content Docket.: CAC155441 Date: 10990928 NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL [Cite as: R. v. Mansour, 1999 NSCA 108] Pugsley, Hallett and Bateman, JJ.A. BETWEEN: MOODY AHMAD MANSOUR ) Craig Clarke ) for the appellant Appellant ) ) - and - ) ) HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN ) Kenneth W. F. Fiske, Q.C. ) for the respondent Respondent ) ) ) ) Appeal Heard: ) September 28, 1999 ) ) Judgment Delivered: ) September 28, 1999 ) ) THE COURT: The appeal is dismissed per reasons for judgment given orally by Pugsley, J.A.; Hallett and Bateman, JJ.A., concurring. The reasons for judgment of the court were given orally by: Pugsley, J.A.: [1] We need not call upon you, Mr. Fiske, to present the Crown's submission. [2] The appellant has brought an application for leave, and if granted, an appeal pursuant to s. 839(1) of the Criminal Code from the decision of Justice MacLellan of the Supreme Court, affirming a conviction entered by Judge Stroud of the Provincial Court that the appellant, on or about the fifth day of July, 1998, operated a motor vehicle, having consumed alcohol in such quantity that the concentration in his blood exceeded 80 milligrams of alcohol in one hundred millilitres of blood, contract to s. 253(b) of the Code. [3] The appellant's appeal to Justice MacLellan was based on the ground that Judge Stroud erred in law in failing to address the argument raised by the appellant, specifically that while the Crown had proved certain elements, including date, time, and place, the evidence at trial revealed that the offence occurred on July 4, 1998. [4] Justice MacLellan dismissed the appeal, noting that the information stated the offence occurred "on or about the fifth of July, 1998", that the appellant testified at trial, and that "there was no suggestion at all that he was confused about when this offence was alleged to have occurred". [5] The appellant raises the same arguments in this court that he raised unsuccessfully before Justice MacLellan. [6] We are satisfied that there was no error of law by either the trial, or the summary appeal court judge. [7] The relevant law is clearly set out by Justice Wilson on behalf of the Supreme Court of Canada in G. B. et al v. R. (1990), 56 C.C.C. (3d) 200, and further commented on by Justice Roscoe, on behalf of this court, in R. v. Carlson (1995) 142 N.S. R. (2d) 248. [8] The appellant was not misled by the variance in time, nor was he prejudiced in his defence. In short, the date of the offence as contained on the information was not, in these circumstances, crucial to the defence, or an essential element of the offence. [9] We dismiss the application for leave to appeal. Pugsley, J.A. Concurred in: Hallett, J.A. Bateman, J.A.