Summary conviction appeal. Issue on appeal of whether trial judge erred in striking accused’s s 9 Charter argument on the basis that the Notice “did not contain particulars or relevant authorities such that the Crown or Court could evaluate” the specific s 9 breach alleged.

Held: Appeal dismissed.

“Compliance with the [Constitutional Notice] Regulation and substantive sufficiency need to be determined by the trial judge…The trial judge’s determination should certainly include consideration of the requirements of Dwernychuk, [1992 ABCA 316] and its objective of ensuring that the Crown has an opportunity to respond appropriately and in a timely way…” Having already granted the defence one adjournment to remedy the notice, the trial judge did not err in refusing a second adjournment and striking the Charter argument as it related to the deficient s 9 area: see factors in Bull, 2010 ABPC 68.

R. Yoo – Defence Counsel