Suspension judiciaire des procédures
| Cette page a été mise à jour ou révisée de manière substantielle pour la dernière fois January 2015. (Rev. # 19240) |
| n.b.: Cette page est expérimentale. Si vous repérez une grammaire ou un texte anglais clairement incorrect, veuillez m'en informer à [email protected] et je le corrigerai dès que possible. |
- < Procédure et pratique
- < Pré-procès et procès
General Principles
Certain courts have jurisdiction to stay criminal proceedings under s. 24(1) where putting a person on trial would amount to an "abuse of process" and violate the "principles of fundamental justice" under s. 7.[1] The principle of abuse of process arises from the common law.[2] It is now superseded by the Charter.[3]
A Stay of Proceedings is the most drastic of remedies available to a court. "Charges that are stayed may never be prosecuted; an alleged victim will never get his or her day in-Court; society will never have the matter resolved by a trier of fact. For these reasons, a stay is reserved for only those cases of abuse where a very high threshold is met: "the threshold for obtaining a stay of proceedings remains, under the Charter as under the common law doctrine of abuse of process, the 'clearest of cases'."[4]
A judicial stay of proceedings is not granted because the accused is entitled to an acquittal but rather because the Crown is "disentitled to a conviction."[5]
- Ultimate Remedy
A stay of proceedings is considered the “ultimate remedy” that is absolutely final, preventing the court from ever adjudicating the matter.[6]
Consequently, there is a high threshold on a stay of proceedings. It is only permissible in the “clearest of cases”.[7]
A clearest of case is one in which the integrity of the justice system is implicated.[8]
- Improper Use of a Stay
A stay should not be used "to discipline the police or to attempt to redress a past wrong."[9]
- When Not Available
A judge does not have the power to stay proceedings on an electable charge where the defence has yet to enter his election.[10]
- Stay is Mostly a Prospective Remedy
In most cases, a stay is intended to be a prospective remedy to prevent future harm. It is only in rare cases of "egregious" misconduct that going forward would be "offensive" that a stay is warranted for past wrongs.[11]
- Standard of Appellate Review
A decision to stay a proceeding under s. 24(1) of the Charter is accorded deference on review.[12]
- ↑
R c Jewitt, 1985 CanLII 47 (SCC), [1985] 2 SCR 128, par Dickson CJ (7:0)
R c Kalanj, 1989 CanLII 63 (SCC), [1989] 1 SCR 1594, par McIntyre J (3:2)
R c Power, 1994 CanLII 126 (SCC), [1994] 1 SCR 601, par L'Heureux‑Dubé J (4:3)
- ↑ R c O'Connor, 1995 CanLII 51 (SCC), [1995] 4 SCR 411, par L'Heureux‑Dubé J
- ↑ e.g. R c Regan, 2002 SCC 12 (CanLII), [2002] 1 SCR 297, par LeBel J (5:4)
- ↑
O'Connor, supra
see R c Carosella, 1997 CanLII 402 (SCC), [1997] 1 SCR 80, par Sopinka J
R c La, 1997 CanLII 309 (SCC), [1997] 2 SCR 680, par Sopinka J
Regan, supra
Taillefer; R v Duguay, 2003 SCC 70 (CanLII), [2003] 3 SCR 307, par LeBel J
- ↑
R c Jewitt, 1985 CanLII 47 (SCC), [1985] 2 SCR 128, par Dickson CJ, at p. 148
Mack, supra, at p. 944
R c Ramelson, 2022 SCC 44 (CanLII), au para 32 - ↑ Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration) v Tobiass, 1997 CanLII 322 (SCC), [1997] 3 SCR 391, 118 CCC (3d) 443, par curiam, au para 86
- ↑
Regan, supra, au para 53
- ↑
R c Antinello, 1995 ABCA 117 (CanLII), 165 AR 122, 97 CCC (3d) 126, par Kerans JA (3:0)
R c Curragh, 1997 CanLII 381 (SCC), [1997] 1 SCR 537, 113 CCC (3d) 481, par La Forest and Cory J (7:2)
R c Spence, 2011 ONSC 2406 (CanLII), 85 CR (6th) 72, par Howden J
R c Bjelland, 2009 SCC 38 (CanLII), [2009] 2 SCR 651, par Rothstein J (4:3)
R c RPS, 2010 ABQB 418 (CanLII), 503 AR 233, par Thomas J
R c Robinson, 1999 ABCA 367 (CanLII), 250 AR 201, par McFadyen JA
R c Latimer, 1997 CanLII 405 (SCC), [1997] 1 SCR 217, 112 CCC (3d) 193, par Lamer CJ
R c Gangl, 2011 ABCA 357 (CanLII), 532 WAC 337, par curiam
- ↑
R c Samuels, 2008 ONCJ 85 (CanLII), 76 WCB (2d) 588, par Nakatsuru J, aux paras 62, 83
- ↑ R c Waugh, 2009 NBCA 23 (CanLII), 246 CCC (3d) 116, par Drapeau CJ
- ↑ Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Tobiass, 1997 CanLII 322 (SCC), [1997] 3 SCR 391, par curiam
- ↑
R c Bellusci, 2012 SCC 44 (CanLII), [2012] 2 SCR 509, par Fish J (7:0), au para 17
Grounds for Stays of Proceeding
- Abuse of Process (s. 7 of Charter)
- Police Misconduct (violence, trickery, etc)
- Crown misconduct
- Lost evidence
- Cruel and Unusual Punishment (s. 12 of Charter)
- Right to a Trial Within a Reasonable Time (s. 11(b) of the Charter)
- Representation at Trial#State-funded Counsel ("Rowbotham" applications) - Stays for Lack of Counsel