R v L O & C (2006)
This wiretap case was the largest drug trafficking prosecution in Calgary legal history up to that time. It was similar to the Edmonton case on which Mr Rice acted called R v C (2003) discussed below. There were fewer defendants in this case but the wiretap component and volume of investigative material was approximately the same. The prosecution bogged down when the Crown Attorney delayed providing disclosure to the defendants. After two years of court motions, Mr Rice brought an application for a stay of proceedings asserting that the state had violated his client’s right to a trial within a reasonable time under ss 11(b) and 24(1) of the Charter of Rights. The trial judge never got to rule on the application. The Crown Attorney stayed the charges.
R v Y (2005)
The defendant was charged with possession of a firearm and ammunition without a licence under s 95 of the Criminal Code and other weapons offences. He was driving a rented sport utility vehicle in a Calgary neighbourhood at night when stopped by the police for a motor vehicle infraction. A police officer saw a shotgun shell on the floor of the driver’s side when he handed the defendant’s operator’s licence back to him. The vehicle was searched without a warrant and a shotgun was found in a Nike bag in the cargo area. The police also found ammunition and two knives in the vehicle. Mr Rice brought a motion to have the shotgun, ammunition and knives excluded from evidence under ss 8 and 24(2) of the Charter of Rights. The trial judge held that the presence of the shotgun shell in plain view gave the police probable cause to apply for a telewarrant which they did not do. The warrantless search of the vehicle therefore breached the defendant’s reasonable expectation of privacy. The trial judge granted the motion, the prosecution’s case collapsed and Mr Rice’s client was acquitted of all charges.
R v C (2003)
This Edmonton case was the largest prosecution in Alberta legal history up to that time. It began on September 24, 1999, and was continuously before the courts until the trial judge granted the defendants’ motion for a stay of proceedings on September 8, 2003. A special courtroom was constructed in the Law Courts Building to accommodate the trial. The case involved two parallel trials, over 400 police officers, multiple wiretap authorizations and search warrants, and approximately 189,000 pages of documents. The third Information in the Provincial Court of Alberta had charged 37 defendants with 41 offences. The case became notorious when it began to collapse during two years of pretrial disclosure and privilege motions. The trial judge called it a “new species” when she stayed all charges for breach of the defendants’ right to be trial within a reasonable time under ss 11(b) and 24(1) of the Charter of Rights.
R v L & K (2001)
The two defendants in this case were charged with production of marijuana and possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking. The charges arose when the police raided a house in a residential Calgary neighbourhood armed with a search warrant. The police officer that obtained the search warrant relied upon expert opinion evidence from another police officer that the electrical consumption data was consistent with the cycles of a marijuana hydroponic operation (DRA). However, that police officer’s expertise was not disclosed to the judge who granted the search warrant. Mr Rice brought an evidence exclusion motion and the Crown Attorney countered with an application to produce the missing expertise. The trial judge ruled that the police ought to have produced the expertise to the judge who granted the search warrant and to allow the Crown to introduce it on the motion would defeat the prior authorization process under s 8 of the Charter of Rights. The case against Mr Rice’s client collapsed and he was acquitted of all charges.
M v W (2001)
A writ of habeas corpus is an extraordinary remedy with deep roots in the common law. The phrase habeas corpus is Latin. In literal translation it means you shall have the body. In the legal context it means to have the body in court. The body is not dead. The corpus is quite alive and the person is in prison. The purpose of an application for habeas corpus is to review the lawfulness of a person’s imprisonment. In this case, M was an inmate in the Drumheller Penitentiary east of Calgary. He was removed from the minimum security unit to administrative segregation and then to the general medium security population. The Warden made the decision based on an allegation that M attempted to bribe a guard in exchange for a private family visit. M was never charged with a disciplinary offence and was denied his right to be present at the classification review hearing. Mr Rice brought an application in the Court of Queen’s Bench at Calgary for an order in the nature of habeas corpus. The chambers judge granted the order and the reclassification decision of the Warden was overturned. M was granted parole shortly after the judgment was rendered.