R v Sevigny, [2001] YJ No 151 (YKTC)

This was an application by the Crown for an adjournment. Denis Sevigny, was before the Court for trial on two charges contrary to s. 446 of the Criminal Code. The charges relate to neglect, or failure to provide for, or allowing two animals, namely horses, under his care and control to suffer; the allegation being that he did not properly care for them.

Sevigny applied for an adjournment, at the beginning, in order to review disclosure and decide whether to retain counsel. On the second appearance, Sevigny was again granted an adjournment as he had just started the process of obtaining legal assistance.

The next trial date was adjourned because there was no judge available. On the date finally set for trial, the Crown provided Sevigny with additional disclosure and sought an adjournment because their key witness was unable to appear for medical reasons. Sevigny had not received notification and had four witnesses present.

The Court allowed the application due to the late disclosure.

Source: Case Law

Jurisdiction: Yukon

Topics: AdjournmentapplicationcarecriminalCriminal Codedelaydisclosurehorses

Report a Broken Link