Source: CanLII

Her Majesty the Queen (prosecution - appellant) v. Yvon Maltais (accused - respondent)
(No. CR 92-01-11942)

Indexed As: R. v. Maltais (Y.)

Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench
Winnipeg Centre
Lockwood, J.
December 3, 1992

Counsel:
Antoine G. Fréchette, for the Crown;
Roxroy O.O. West, for the accused.

The appeal was heard by Lockwood, J., of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Winnipeg Centre.

Lockwood, J., delivered the following oral decision on December 3, 1992.

[1] Lockwood, J. [orally]: The Crown appeals a decision of Ms. Duval, judge of the Provincial Court of Manitoba.

[2] The accused was charged with impaired driving and refusing to provide a breath sample. He was acquitted because there was no evidence that the incident took place in the city of Winnipeg and the Court refused to take judicial notice of this fact.

[3] Duval J. applied the criteria described in R. v. Potts (1982), 1982 CanLII 1751 (ON CA), 66 C.C.C.(2d) 219 (C.A. Ont.), at pages 225 and 226:

Thus it has been held that, generally speaking, a court may properly take judicial notice of any fact or matter which is so generally known and accepted that it cannot reasonably be questioned, or any fact or matter which can readily be determined or verified by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.

[4] Duval J. remarked that the evidence consisted solely of the names of certain roads on which the accused had driven and of the fact that the arrest was conducted by specific officers of Winnipeg Police Service who escorted the accused to the Public Safety Building located at 151 Princess Street, but there was no indication that these roads or the building in question were located in the City of Winnipeg.

[5] Duval J. indicated that she had personal knowledge that the roads in question were located in the City of Winnipeg but she was not satisfied that the community in general would have such knowledge so she could not take judicial notice of the fact that the City of Winnipeg was located in the Province of Manitoba. She concluded that the court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case. In the circumstances the charges were dismissed.

[6] In R. v. Hiltz, 21 C.C.C. 378 (N.S.S.C.), at page 388, Doull J. said:

… The evidence that the detective was on a call and that he was and is a member of the Halifax City Police Force is sufficient to fix the place.

[7] The evidence in this case demonstrates that every officer was a member of the Winnipeg Police Service and that they were acting as police officers.

[8] Additionally, I am of the view that the two roads mentioned in the evidence must be well-known in the community: Henderson Highway and Disraeli Freeway.

[9] Aside from that, Sergeant Zaporzan testified that around 10:30 PM, he was conducting surveillance in the neighbourhood of Logan and Salter and that he was at the corner of Logan Avenue and Lizzie Street when he observed the accused's vehicle which bore a registration plate from Manitoba numbered 217 YBC. He tried to pass this vehicle on Logan Avenue.

[10] The accused, in his testimony, said that he had been living in Winnipeg, at 1549 Logan Avenue for five years.

[11] Sergeant Irwin testified that he said to the accused:

I'm arresting you for impaired driving, on the 21st day of September of this year in the City of Winnipeg.

[12] In regards to the criterion described in Potts which states:

… any fact or matter which can readily be determined or verified by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.

… it is evident that one could trace the pursuit described by Sergeant Zaporzan while consulting a map of Winnipeg. The map would show the continuity of the roads mentioned by Sergeant Zaporzan and one could not say in this context that the roads could be located in a different city. One could also find the the address of the Public Safety Building in the phone book.

[13] I find that that in the circumstances and on the facts in evidence, Duval J. could have taken judicial notice that the events took place in the City of Winnipeg and that the court had jurisdiction to try the case.

[14] The appeal is allowed. I order that the accused undergo a new trial before the Provincial Court of Manitoba.

Appeal allowed.