Supreme Court of Canada
(Application for Leave) Attorney General of Alberta v. Joseph William Moloney, 2014 CanLII 30993 (SCC)
(Decision) Attorney General of Alberta v. Joseph William Moloney, 2015 SCC 51
Provincial Court of Alberta
Sopa (Re), 2023 ABSRA 243
The Recipient was subject to a “No Active Prohibition” (NAP). For the NAP to be cancelled, the Recipient was tasked with presenting valid grounds covering all aspects of the prohibition. Upon examination of the evidence or arguments submitted, the decision favoured the Recipient, resulting in the cancellation of the NAP.
Additionally, the Recipient was granted the option to pursue a judicial review, but must initiate this process within a 30-day window from the receipt of the decision, with further details available in Appendix C.
A subsequent notice highlighted the Recipient’s entitlement to a complimentary duplicate driver’s licence from an Alberta registry location. This offer stands for a duration of 60 days post the decision’s date, provided the Recipient has no other extant suspensions, conditions for reinstatement, or other restrictions. While the licence itself is without charge, associated registry agent fees remain applicable. Post the 60-day period, all associated fees, including those for the duplicate service, fall upon the Recipient. Lastly, a recommendation was made for the Recipient to approach the Alberta registry agent a day after receiving this correspondence to ensure efficient processing.
Bavanala (Re), 2023 ABSRA 682
On March 25, 2023, an RCMP officer intercepted a “muddy white SUV” that was reported for erratic driving. Upon investigation, the officer issued a Notice of Administrative Penalty (NAP) to the driver (Recipient) for impaired operation due to alcohol, drugs, or a combination of both.
The Recipient appealed this penalty on March 31, 2023. The adjudicator’s role was to review and determine if the Recipient met the criteria to have the NAP cancelled.
The review focused on three grounds:
- Incomplete records provided to the Recipient.
- Doubts about the driver’s impairment.
- The officer’s failure to inform the Recipient about the right to a roadside appeal.
Upon review, the evidence presented inconsistencies:
- Police narratives detailed erratic driving behaviour and observations that suggested impairment.
- There was a discrepancy between written records, suggesting the Recipient wasn’t informed of the right to a roadside appeal.
- The NAP indicated that the Recipient wasn’t offered an appeal because of the drug tests being done.
- The Recipient stated he was unaware of the appeal right until after his release.
Considering the evidence and inconsistencies, especially concerning the right to a roadside appeal, the adjudicator decided to cancel the NAP.
Knight (Re), 2023 ABSRA 383
On February 6, 2023, a collision occurred at Big Hill Springs Drive and East Lake Boulevard, Airdrie, Alberta. The involved party, referred to as the Recipient, was issued a Notice of Administrative Penalty (NAP) for:
- Operating a vehicle while impaired by alcohol or drugs.
- Having a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit within two hours of driving.
The Recipient challenged this penalty and sought a review of the NAP under Alberta’s Provincial Administrative Penalties Act (PAPA).
Key Grounds for Review:
- The Director didn’t provide the complete records required by PAPA.
- The Recipient wasn’t informed about their right to a roadside appeal and was unaware of this right.
- Not all necessary records regarding the alcohol testing instrument were provided, breaching the required regulations.
- Due to this, the case favoured the Recipient, making further arguments unnecessary.
- Both penalties (for impaired operation and for exceeding the legal alcohol limit) were cancelled.
The Recipient has 30 days from the decision to seek a judicial review if desired. Additionally, they can reclaim a driver’s license within 60 days and must contact the seizure lot for vehicle release.
R. v. Farrell, 2017 ABPC 46
The accused was the driver of a motor vehicle that was stopped by a police officer for a traffic offence. The officer then, on reasonable and probable grounds, wanted to make an arrest of the driver for a criminal offence. The Defence argued that the short delay to get the accused out of the driver’s seat was a breach of section 10(a) of the Charter, namely the right to be informed promptly of the reason for the arrest/detention, which then delayed the implementation of the accused’s 10(b) right to be informed without delay of the opportunity to contact legal counsel.
R v. Hotchen, 2019 ABPC 187 & R v. Hotchen, 2019 ABPC 226
On October 22, 2016, the police entered onto an acreage where Mr. Hotchen was residing, pursuant to a search warrant. There were eight people present on the acreage at the time. They were all arrested. No drugs were found on any of those people, except a small amount of marijuana and meth. However, fentanyl, heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine (“meth”), as well as a sawed-off shotgun, and drug paraphernalia were found on the acreage.
The matter was set for trial after a preliminary inquiry, and a three week trial proceeded. The first week of the trial was a voir dire in which Mr. Hotchen sought exclusion of evidence because of a Charter breach. At the end of the voir dire this court found a Charter breach, but did not exclude the evidence under s24(2) of the Charter. This was followed by a second voir dire with respect to the qualifications of Constable Running.
R v. Labelle, 2019 ABPC 192
The accused wass charged with possession of methamphetamine for the purposes of trafficking, contrary to section 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act SC 1996, c.19 (CDSA). The date of the alleged offence is October 11, 2017, at or near Cochrane, Alberta.
Man who tried to fight grizzly bear in Banff National Park fined $4,000
R v. Mitsuing, 2019 ABPC
“I think the judge said it best, when an individual creates this kind of dangerous situation with a bear, when they charge at him, when they throw rocks at him when they cause him to run into the bush, you are going to create an aggressive animal that obviously has the ability to do a lot of harm to humans and the public in general.”
Campers fined for messy campsites during wolf warning in Banff National Park
R v. Le, R v. Nguyen, 2016 ABPC
Thousands of dollars in national park fines were handed out to 12 people who pleaded guilty in a Canmore court Wednesday, September 28, 2016 — including several cases directly related to the troubled Bow Valley wolf pack in Banff National Park.
Calgary man fined $1,500 for weapon in Lake Louise campground, forfeits gun
R v. Ochitwa, 2019 ABPC
“The Lake Louise RCMP was dispatched to the location after the accused uttered threats to the neighbouring campsite occupants … they believed their generator was threatened.”
$2,500 fine for taking antlers from park
R v. Zidek, 2015 ABPC
A Canmore man has been fined $2,500 for trying to remove elk antlers from Banff National Park earlier this summer.
Three months jail for social trafficking
R v. Gouin, 2017 ABPC
A Canmore man will spend the next 90 days in jail after pleading guilty in Canmore Provincial Court to trafficking cocaine. Olivier Gouin made the guilty plea on Jan. 4 in front of Judge P. Barley.
R v. Wildman, 2020 ABPC
R v. Enns-Horvath, 2020 ABPC
Court of Appeal of Alberta
Moloney v Alberta (Administrator, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Act), 2014 ABCA 68 (CanLII)
The issue on this appeal is whether Alberta can deny the respondent a driver’s licence because he has an unpaid judgment for personal injury damages against him, even though that judgment has been discharged by bankruptcy.
Court of King’s Bench of Alberta
Moloney v Alberta (Administrator of the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Act), 2012 ABQB 644, 2012 ABQB 644 (CanLII)
Joseph William Moloney, the Applicant, was an uninsured, at-fault motorist involved in a car accident on November 18, 1989. That was just about 23 years ago.
In 1996, the Respondent, the Administrator of the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Act (the Administrator) obtained a default judgment against Mr. Moloney for a total of $194,875.0 (the Judgment). The Administrator acted on his behalf pursuant to its statutory representative capacity under the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Act. The matter was subsequently resolved on June 18, 1996. That is about 16 years ago.
Mr. Maloney made arrangements to make payments to the Administrator but the amounts were not in evidence. At the time of the hearing, the amount remaining was $192,103.79.
In 2008, Mr. Moloney filed for bankruptcy. On June 17, 2011, he was discharged from bankruptcy (Absolute Order of Discharge). His Statement of Affairs filed in the bankruptcy contained the Judgment obtained by the Administrator amongst his liabilities.
The following issues are raised by these circumstances:
- Can the Government of Alberta enforce the Administrator’s Judgment, despite the bankruptcy and absolute discharge of Mr. Moloney?
- Despite the absolute discharge, can the Government of Alberta invoke the provisions of the Traffic Safety Act, and suspend the licence and vehicle registration of Mr. Moloney?
R v. Jama, 2021 ABQB 290
After conviction and before sentencing Mr. Jama filed an application for a stay of proceedings based entirely upon pre-trial delay. The parties agree that the net delay exceeds the presumptive ceiling of 30 months established in R v Jordan, 2016 SCC 27 [Jordan]. Defence Counsel testified during the application that he did not bring the stay application because he erred in calculating defence delay. The error was not discovered until after trial.
Few cases have considered whether a s 11(b) stay application can be brought post-conviction for pre-conviction delay. Defence argues that an application can be brought and the remedy of a stay of proceedings is available post-conviction where there are extraordinary circumstances. Defence Counsel’s acknowledgment of his error in calculating defence delay, together with the COVID-19 pandemic, are argued to constitute extraordinary circumstances.
The Crown’s position is that I should apply the test for appellate intervention due to incompetency of counsel to determine whether there are extraordinary circumstances. Applying that test, the application should be dismissed as the error did not result in a miscarriage of justice. Had Defence Counsel correctly calculated defence delay and raised the delay in a timely manner, accommodations could have been made to remedy the delay.
The issues I must determine are:
- Does Mr. Jama’s failure to bring the stay application before trial prevent this Court from granting a stay based on pre-trial delay? and
- If not, are the circumstances in this case extraordinary?
For the reasons that follow I conclude:
- The fact that the stay application was brought after trial based on pre-trial delay does not preclude this Court from hearing the application and granting a stay; and
- I am not persuaded that the circumstances are extraordinary justifying a stay of proceedings.
Man who ran at the thought of jail time gets 3 years, 9 months for drug charges
R v. Sparkes, 2019 ABQB
A convicted meth dealer who ran out the front door of the courthouse before his July 2018 sentencing has received three years and nine months in prison for possession for purposes of trafficking.
R v. Dominic, 2015 ABQB
Four people arrested in Airdrie drug bust
R v. Knapp, R v. Toth, 2018 ABQB
On June 17, members of the Airdrie Crime Reduction Unit along with Calgary RCMP, Calgary Police and the Calgary Alberta Law Enforcement Response Team obtained search warrants for homes in Airdrie and Calgary in connection with an ongoing drug investigation.
The search warrants were executed that afternoon and resulted in the arrest of four suspects and the seizure of over 200 grams of cocaine, Fentanyl, MDMA, Canadian cash and an assortment of drug paraphernalia.
R v. MacDonald, 2018 ABQB
R v. Randall, 2019 ABQB
R v. Shrubsall, R v. Munroe, 2018 ABQB
Senior pot transporter handed 12-month jail term
R v. Brown, 2017 ABQB
Transporting more than 83 pounds of pot across the country for what he claimed was medicinal marijuana use has landed a B.C. man a one-year jail term.