Manhas v. The Queen, [1980] 1 SCR 591

Supreme Court of Canada

Manhas v. The Queen, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 591

Date: 1980-03-18

David Manhas Appellant;

and

Her Majesty The Queen Respondent.

1980: March 12; 1980: March 18.

Present: Laskin C.J. and Martland, Ritchie, Dickson, Beetz, Estey and Chouinard JJ.

ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA

Criminal law—Trial—Trial judge declining to grant further adjournment—Power to grant or refuse adjournment—No error established on part of trial judge in the exercise of his discretion.

The accused was convicted after a trial by judge and jury on four counts, two of possession of stolen property, one of breaking and entering business premises and one of breaking and entering a dwelling house. On appeal, two grounds of appeal were argued on behalf of the accused: that the trial judge erred in law in proceeding with the trial when the accused was not represented by counsel; and that the trial judge erred in law in not offering sufficient advice and assistance to the appellant in the course of the trial. The British Columbia Court of Appeal, by a majority, dismissed the appeal. The accused then appealed to this Court.

Held: The appeal should be dismissed.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia dismissing the appellant’s appeal against his conviction of two counts of breaking and entering and two counts of possession of stolen property. Appeal dismissed.

Lawrence D. Myers and Robert Dunn, for the appellant.

A.M. Stewart, for the respondent.

The judgment of the Court was delivered by

MARTLAND J.—I agree with the view expressed by the majority of the Court of Appeal that, in the circumstances of this case, there was no error of law in the decision of the trial judge in declining to grant a further adjournment of the trial on November 28, 1977. The power to grant or refuse an adjournment was one which could be exercised at the discretion of the trial judge. The appellant has not established that in the exercise of his

[Page 592]

discretion the trial judge failed to act in accordance with proper legal principles.

I would dismiss the appeal.

Appeal dismissed.

Solicitors for the appellant: Hogan, Ritchie & Co., Vancouver.

Solicitors for the respondent: Regional Crown Counsel, Vancouver.