R. v. Geddes (J.G.J.), 2012 MBCA 31

Citation: R. v. Geddes (J.G.J.), 2012 MBCA 31 Date: 20120322 Docket: AR 10-30-07461 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN ) ) W. Marks Respondent ) on behalf of the Applicant ) - and - ) ) Chambers motion heard andJOEL GARRY JEFFREY GEDDES ) Decision pronounced: ) March 22, 2012 (Accused) Applicant ) CHARTIER J.A. 1 On May 26, 2011, this court set aside the accused’s conviction and ordered a new trial in Provincial Court.

Prior tothe accused’s first appearance in Provincial Court, a single judge of this court granted the judicial interim release of the accused pursuantto s. 679(7.1) of the Criminal Code (the Code). Since then, the accused has appeared in the Provincial Court for the purpose ofarranging a new trial date. Since then, the accused has also twice asked this court to vary his conditions of release.

He does so againtoday. 2 At the hearing, I brought into question the appropriateness of the continued use of this court to consider judicialinterim release issues when the accused is now before the trial court and his matter is no longer pending in ours.

I was informed that theCrown was not opposed to having his judicial interim release issues considered in the trial court. 3 While a single judge of this court has jurisdiction to consider the matter pursuant to s. 679(7.1), I am of the view thatsubs. (7.1) does not remove a trial court’s jurisdiction under s. 515 or s. 522 of the Code once the accused is back before that court. When the accused’s charges are returned to the trial court, that court has the jurisdiction to consider the accused’s judicial interimrelease. There is precedent for this approach. As was explained by Fish J.A. (as he then was) in R. v.

Barbeau (1998), (QC CA), 131 C.C.C. (3d) 350 at 351-52, (Qc. C.A.) the principal purpose of s. 679(7.1) “is to bridge a temporal gap” betweenthe order for the new trial and the accused’s first appearance in the trial court. See also R. v. Vincent, 2008 ONCA 76 at paras. 7-15(QL). 4 There can be no doubt that trial courts are better equipped to manage these types of proceedings. Unlike this court,there are courtrooms assigned on a more regular basis to consider bail applications and, if necessary, to hear evidence. In addition, whilethis court only hears matters in Winnipeg, trial courts sit across the province.

Moreover, it is better practice to have the court which hascontrol over an accused’s matters to also have control over any judicial interim release questions. 5 In this case, a single judge of this court has bridged “the temporal gap” and released the accused on conditions. Thattimeframe must now come to an end. I now order that the accused present himself to the Provincial Court on his next appearance date. On that date, his judicial interim release will come to an end and the trial court will have the jurisdiction to consider any request forjudicial interim release.

As a matter of practice, and in the absence of a change in circumstances, it would normally be expected that anyconditions of release would be similar to those imposed by this court. J.A.