WESTLOCK – The Westlock DJ turned anti-COVID-mandate freedom fighter and rally organizer will be back in court next month in her ongoing fight against 10 Public Health Act tickets received in 2021.
In Westlock Provincial Court Feb. 2, Judge Robert Shaigec, who presided from the St. Albert courthouse, put Benita Pedersen’s case over until March 2 in lieu of a second pre-trial conference that was scheduled for the last week of February, although a firm date was not set in stone by specialized prosecutor Craig Kallal.
There was an initial pre-trial conference in December where the judge directed that another meeting be scheduled, said Kallal, adding he had not yet heard from Pedersen as to her upcoming availability.
Pedersen, who attended the appearance via telephone, told court the first three weeks of February were "very difficult” for her.
Kallal said Pedersen’s request for further disclosure from the RCMP was still in the works, though his office is in the process of preparing what they already have. He also noted he has submitted a letter to Pedersen in response to her request for clarification on what charges she faces and what public health orders were breached.
Pedersen, who’s not represented by a lawyer and has yet to enter a plea, faces 10 PHA 73(1) tickets for contravening an order of the Medical Officer of Health, specifically in relation to mass gatherings. Each ticket carries a specified fine of $1,000, plus a 20 per cent victim fine surcharge.
This was her eleventh appearance since her first ticket appeared on the docket early in 2021.
At her Jan. 5 court appearance, Pedersen made a statement for the record, saying, “I have requested full disclosure from the Crown per R v Stinchcombe. I have detailed to the Crown a number of items that must at minimum be disclosed for me to make a defence. To date I have received nothing accept a package of videos of meetings where I was present.”
R v Stinchcombe is a landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision from 1991 that relates to the disclosure of evidence. The unanimous decision found the Crown has a duty to provide the defence with all evidence that could possibly be relevant to the case, whether it is to be presented as evidence or not, regardless of whether it helps or hurts the Crown's case.
