|
ÐÏ à¡± á > þÿ ½ ¿ þÿÿÿ » ¼ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿì¥Á @ ð ¿ ·Ü bjbjצצ % µÌ µÌ †Ó 0 ÿÿ ÿÿ ÿÿ ˆ ’ ’ ’ R ä 4 ¸# ¸# ¸# ¸# | 4$ L 4 ›= ¶ Œ$ Œ$ Œ$ Œ$ Œ$ Œ$ Œ$ Œ$ >= @= @= @= @= @= @= Q> R £@ ò @= Œ$ Œ$ Œ$ Œ$ Œ$ @= Œ$ Œ$ U= J. J. J. Œ$ ´ Œ$ Œ$ >= J. Œ$ >= J. J. ¢ â8 ä = Œ$ €$ Ðä™(ªRÆ ¸# @) d Æ: 6 >= k= 0 ›= ü: •A ¤, – •A l = 4 4 •A = 8 J. Œ$ Œ$ Œ$ @= @= 4 4 „ ¸# :. 4 4 ¸# SUPREME COURT OF CANADA Faber v. The Queen, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 9 Date: 1975-03-26 Claude Faber Appellant; and Her Majesty The Queen et al. Respondents; and Attorney General and Minister of Justice of the Province of Quebec and another Mis en cause. 1974: October 15 and 16; 1975: March 26. Present: Laskin C.J. and Martland, Judson, Ritchie, Spence, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz and de Grandpré JJ. ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, PROVINCE OF QUEBEC Criminal Law—Coroner's inquest—Committal for refusing to testify—Application for writ of prohibition refused—Civil proceeding—Court of Queen's Bench (Criminal Side) lacks jurisdiction—Criminal Code, 1953-54 (Can.), c. 51, ss. 2(10), 413(2)—Coroners Act, 1966-67 (Que.), c, 19, ss. 1, 7, 13 and 30. Appellant had been called by the coroner as a witness. Having refused to testify, he was repeatedly committed for contempt of court. At the continuation of the inquest, appellant was again invited to testify and refused to do so. In the interval of adjournment, he submitted to the Court of Queen's Bench, Criminal Side, a motion praying that a writ of prohibition be issued against the coroner, arguing that the matter was dealt with by the Criminal Code and that the coroner had exhausted his jurisdiction with respect to contempt of court. This motion was dismissed for the reason that the matter in question was dealt with by the Code of Civil Procedure. This judgment was upheld by the Court of Appeal which concluded that, as the matter was of a civil nature, only the Superior Court had authority to hear a motion for prohibition against the coroner. Appellant was granted leave to appeal by this Court. Held (Laskin C.J. and Spence, Pigeon and Beetz JJ. dissenting):
|