Court of Queen ’ s Bench of Alberta Citation: R. v. Hamelin, 2010 ABQB 807 Date: 20101216 Docket: 060157104S1 Registry: Edmonton Between: Her Majesty the Queen Respondent - and - Stephen Brent Hamelin Appellant _______________________________________________________ Supplemental Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Mr. Justice Robert A. Graesser _______________________________________________________ Background [ 1 ] In my decision dated August 12 th , 2010, R. v. Hamlin , 2010 ABQB 529 , I dealt with the result at paragraphs 218 to 222.

Subsequent communications with counsel indicates that the directions I gave were incorrect. In particular, while the Crown led some evidence on a justification at the trial, it did not lead all of the evidence it intended to put forward on that issue. Secondly, Crown counsel and counsel for Mr. Hamlin had agreed before the trial that the trial would be conducted in a two step process and only the first step was completed. New result

[ 2 ] As a result of my corrected understanding of the trial proceedings, it would be inappropriate for me to assume jurisdiction to have the parties argue justification before me on the basis of the evidence that was presented to the trial judge.

The Crown had not closed its case in that regard and I am likely without jurisdiction to hear such evidence. [ 3 ] Paragraphs 219 through 222 of my August 12 th decision should be deleted and replaced as follows: 219) The trial judge’s decision on prima facie infringement is quashed, as is the conviction. 220) The Appellant has made out a case of prima facie infringement. 221) The matter is remitted to the trial judge to proceed with the justification phase of the trial. 222) I leave it to the parties to make arrangements with the Provincial Court of Alberta to find a suitable time to complete the trial before His Honour Judge Wheatley.

Heard on the 12 th and 13th days of January, 2010. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 16 th day of December, 2010. Robert A. Graesser J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: David Gates, Q.C. for the Respondent Jeffrey R.W. Rath, Nathalie Whyte, Delanie Coad Rath and Company for the Appellant