R. v. Jamieson
The Court dismissed the appeal because the motion judge correctly quashed the subpoena: the record did not demonstrate the proposed Crown witness was likely to give material evidence, and motions concerning trial-related matters should generally be adjourned to the trial judge absent special circumstances (R. v....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2014 ONCA 766
- Parties
- Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Appellant: Steven Jamieson
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 3 November 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Appeal From Motion Judge Order Granting Certiorari to Quash a Subpoena
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed; motion judge's order quashing the subpoena upheld
- Legal Topics
- Subpoena, Certiorari, Compellability of Witnesses, Trial Related Motions, Crown Counsel Testimony
- 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
Respondent
Steven Jamieson
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal From Motion Judge Order Granting Certiorari to Quash a Subpoena
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a subpoena requiring Crown counsel in related proceedings to testify should be quashed by certiorari
- 2 Whether motions raising trial-related matters should be decided by the trial judge under R. v. Johnson
- 3 Whether the proposed witness was likely to give material evidence pursuant to R. v. Harris
Ratio Decidendi
The Court dismissed the appeal because the motion judge correctly quashed the subpoena: the record did not demonstrate the proposed Crown witness was likely to give material evidence, and motions concerning trial-related matters should generally be adjourned to the trial judge absent special circumstances (R. v. Johnson).
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed; motion judge's order quashing the subpoena upheld
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
- Order granting certiorari and quashing the subpoena issued January 9, 2014 is upheld.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Jamieson Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2014-11-03 Neutral citation 2014 ONCA 766 Docket numbers C58296 Judges Doherty, David H.; Tulloch, Michael H.; Benotto, Mary Lou Subject Criminal Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: R. v. Jamieson, 2014 ONCA 766 DATE: 20141031 DOCKET: C58296 Doherty, Tulloch and Benotto JJ.A. BETWEEN Her Majesty the Queen Respondent and Steven Jamieson Appellant Ilan Neuman, for the appellant Nick Devlin, for the respondent Heard: October 27, 2014 On appeal from the judgment of Justice J R. MacKinnon of the Superior Court of Justice, dated January 17, 2014, granting the application for certiorari to quash the subpoena issued January 9, 2014. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] The progress of this proceeding shows the wisdom of the policy underlying R. v. Johnson (1991), 64 C.C.C. (3d) 20. No doubt had the issue been raised before the motion judge he would have adjourned the motion to quash the subpoena to the trial judge. Unfortunately he was not asked to do so. Consequently the trial has been delayed several months while this appeal was outstanding. We repeat absent “special circumstances” motions like this one which raise trial related matters should be heard by the trial court. [2] On the merits we agree with the motion judge. Nothing before him demonstrated that the proposed witness, Crown counsel in the proceedings involving the former co-accused, was likely to give material evidence: R. v. Harris (1996), 93 C.C.C. (3d) 478 (C.A.). The appeal is dismissed. [3] In dismissing the appeal we do not intend to preclude the appellant from raising the issue at trial. If the issue is raised at trial, the trial judge based on the record before him or her and having due regard to the reasons on the certiorari motion will determine whether the witness should be compelled to testify: see R. v. Johnson. [4] The appeal is dismissed.