View source for Mandamus, Certiorari, and Prohibition

{{LevelZero}}{{HeaderPreTrial}}
{{seealso|Judicial Review of Parole Ineligibility for Murder}}
==Prerogative Writs==
{{seealso|Habeas Corpus}}
Applications for prerogative writs consisting of certiorari, habeas corpus, mandamus, procedendo, or prohibition are governed by Part XXVI (s. 774 to 784):
{{quotation|
; Application of Part
774 This Part applies to proceedings in criminal matters by way of certiorari, habeas corpus, mandamus, procedendo and prohibition.
<br>
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 774; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 169.
|[{{CCCSec|774}} CCC]
}}

Courts should be "reluctant" to exercise interlocutory prerogative remedies.<ref>
''R v McGrath'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1sxw4 2007 NSSC 255] (CanLII){{perNSSC|Murphy J}}{{at|38}}<br>
</ref>

All "extrodinary remedies", including certiorari, are strictly limited in criminal matters to jurisdictional errors by a provincial court judge.<ref>
''R v Awashish'', [http://canlii.ca/t/hvqb5 2018 SCC 45] (CanLII){{perSCC|Rowe J}} (9:0){{at|20}}<br>
''R v Stipo'', [http://canlii.ca/t/hwtx4 2019 ONCA 3] (CanLII){{perONCA|Watt JA}} (3:0){{At|46}}<br>
</ref> 
Jurisdictional errors occur where the provincial court (1) failes to observe mandatory provisions of a statute or (2) acts in breach of the principles of natural justice.<ref>
{{supra1|Awashish}}{{at|23}}<br>
{{supra1|Stipo}}{{at|47}}<br>
</ref>

The limited use of these rememdies is in order to avoid the rule against interlocutory appeals.<ref>
{{supra1|Awashish}}{{ats|10 to 11}}
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

===Remedial Powers to Fix Defects===
Section 777 permits the court to remedy certain defects in orders that would otherwise be invalid on application of certiorari.

{{quotation|
; Conviction or order remediable, when
777 (1) No conviction, order or warrant for enforcing a conviction or order shall, on being removed by certiorari, be held to be invalid by reason of any irregularity, informality or insufficiency therein, where the court before which or the judge before whom the question is raised, on perusal of the evidence, is satisfied
:(a) that an offence of the nature described in the conviction, order or warrant, as the case may be, was committed,
:(b) that there was jurisdiction to make the conviction or order or issue the warrant, as the case may be, and
:(c) that the punishment imposed, if any, was not in excess of the punishment that might lawfully have been imposed,
but the court or judge has the same powers to deal with the proceedings in the manner that the court or judge considers proper that are conferred on a court to which an appeal might have been taken.
; Correcting punishment
(2) Where, in proceedings to which subsection (1) applies, the court or judge is satisfied that a person was properly convicted of an offence but the punishment that was imposed is greater than the punishment that might lawfully have been imposed, the court or judge
:(a) shall correct the sentence,
::(i) where the punishment is a fine, by imposing a fine that does not exceed the maximum fine that might lawfully have been imposed,
::(ii) where the punishment is imprisonment, and the person has not served a term of imprisonment under the sentence that is equal to or greater than the term of imprisonment that might lawfully have been imposed, by imposing a term of imprisonment that does not exceed the maximum term of imprisonment that might lawfully have been imposed, or
::(iii) where the punishment is a fine and imprisonment, by imposing a punishment in accordance with subparagraph (i) or (ii), as the case requires; or
:(b) shall remit the matter to the convicting judge, justice or provincial court judge and direct him to impose a punishment that is not greater than the punishment that may be lawfully imposed.

; Amendment
(3) Where an adjudication is varied pursuant to subsection (1) or (2), the conviction and warrant of committal, if any, shall be amended to conform to the adjudication as varied.
<br>
; Sufficiency of statement
(4) Any statement that appears in a conviction and is sufficient for the purpose of the conviction is sufficient for the purposes of an information, summons, order or warrant in which it appears in the proceedings.
<br>
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 777; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 203.
|[{{CCCSec|777}} CCC]
}}

{{quotation|
; Irregularities within section 777
778 Without restricting the generality of section 777, that section shall be deemed to apply where
:(a) the statement of the adjudication or of any other matter or thing is in the past tense instead of in the present tense;
:(b) the punishment imposed is less than the punishment that might by law have been imposed for the offence that appears by the evidence to have been committed; or
:(c) there has been an omission to negative circumstances, the existence of which would make the act complained of lawful, whether those circumstances are stated by way of exception or otherwise in the provision under which the offence is charged or are stated in another provision.
<br>
R.S., c. C-34, s. 712.
|[{{CCCSec|778}} CCC]

}}

Further, a warrant of committal cannot be held void by writ where it contains a "valid conviction" and names the defendant as convicted.<ref>
s. 782</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

==Procedure==

A judge may require that any applicant of certiorari enter into a recognizance for the duration of the application.<ref>
see s. 779</ref>

Where a application to quash has been refused, the matter is to be returned to the original jurisdiction without need of an application of ''procedendo''.<ref>
see s. 780</ref> 

{{reflist|2}}

===Rules of Court===
Superior courts have the authority to set their own rules regarding prerogative writs:

{{quotation|
; Power to make rules
482. (1) Every superior court of criminal jurisdiction and every court of appeal may make rules of court not inconsistent with this or any other Act of Parliament, and any rules so made apply to any prosecution, proceeding, action or appeal, as the case may be, within the jurisdiction of that court, instituted in relation to any matter of a criminal nature or arising from or incidental to any such prosecution, proceeding, action or appeal.
<br>
...<br>
; Purpose of rules
(3) Rules under subsection (1) or (2) may be made
<br>...<br>
:(c) to regulate the pleading, practice and procedure in criminal matters, including pre-hearing conferences held under section 625.1, proceedings with respect to judicial interim release and preliminary inquiries and, in the case of rules under subsection (1), proceedings with respect to mandamus, certiorari, habeas corpus, prohibition and procedendo and proceedings on an appeal under section 830; and

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 482; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 66; 1994, c. 44, s. 35; 2002, c. 13, s. 17.
|[{{CCCSec|482}} CCC]
}}

Within each province, the superior courts will incorporate rules of procedure regarding applications for writs.<ref>
e.g. Rule 64 of the [http://www.courts.ns.ca/rules/consolidated/cpr_consolidated_rules_13_01_23.pdf Nova Scotia Civil Procedure Rules]
</ref>

{{Reflist|2}}

==General Principles of Mandamus==
An order of ''mandamus'' (latin for "we command") is a common law "prerogative writ" power of a superior court to order a lower court or government agent to perform a mandatory duty correctly.<ref>

''R v MPS'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fwsfs 2013 BCSC 525] (CanLII){{perBCSC|Romilly J}} ("Mandamus, ... is the name of the prerogative writ that issues from a court of superior jurisdiction to the inferior tribunal commanding the latter to exercise its jurisdiction.")
</ref>

It is a discretionary remedy to compel a lower court to exercise jurisdiction where it has incorrectly refused to do so.<ref>
''R v MacDonald'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1sxw4 2007 NSSC 255] (CanLII){{perNSSC|Murphy J}}{{at|17}}</ref>

A prerogative writ is a manner of correcting errors of jurisdiction made by inferior courts as well as correcting failures of natural justice or procedural fairness.<ref> 
''R v Forsythe'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1mjv8 1980 CanLII 15] (SCC), [1980] 2 SCR 268, 53 CCC (2d) 225{{perSCC|Laskin CJ}}
</ref>

Mandamus is available where an inferior judicial body "has either failed or wrongly exercised its jurisdiction such that there has been a jurisdictional error... If [the judicial body] erroneously refuses to act on the grounds that it lacks territorial or legal jurisdiction, mandamus will lie to compel it to accept jurisdiction."<ref>
{{supra1|MPS}}{{at|10}}</ref>

When the duty is of a judicial nature, mandamus is not available regardless of whether the decision was incorrect. No superior court can change that decision except for exceptional circumstances such as prejudice, bias, personal interest, dishonesty, and the like.<ref>
''R v Coughlan'' (1969), [1970] 3 CCC 61 (Alta. T.D.), [http://canlii.ca/t/htvj8 1969 CanLII 949] (AB QB){{perABQB|Riley J}}{{atp|72}}
</ref>

The order is only available where the body refuses to exercise its jurisdiction.<ref>
''R v Faber'', (1987), 38 CCC (3d) 49 (Que. Sup. Ct.), [http://canlii.ca/t/gcr90 1987 CanLII 6849] (QC CS){{perQCCS|Boilard J}}{{atp|54}}
</ref>

Despite having jurisdiction, a superior court can refuse prerogative relief if there is an equally effective alternative remedy.<ref>
Harelkin v University of Regina, [http://canlii.ca/t/1mkv4 1979 CanLII 18] (SCC), [1979] 2 SCR 561{{perSCC|Beetz J}}{{atp|588}}
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

==General Principles of Certiorari==
Certiorari is type of common law writ where the applicant seeks judicial review of a judge's decision by a higher court. It can only be issued when the reviewable court has exceeded its jurisdiction<ref>
Patterson v The Queen (1970), 2 CCC (2d) 227, [http://canlii.ca/t/1xd5w 1970 CanLII 180] (SCC), [1970] SCR 409{{perSCC|Judson J}}, citing Lord Sumner in ''R v Nat Bell Liquors'', Ltd. (1922), 47 CCC 129 (P.C.), [http://canlii.ca/t/g9c5z 1922 CanLII 488] (UK JCPC):
:That the superior Court should be bound by the record is inherent in the nature of the case.  Its jurisdiction is to see that the inferior Court has not exceeded its own, and for that very reason it is bound not to interfere in what has been done within that jurisdiction, for in so doing it would itself, in turn, transgress the limits within which its own jurisdiction of supervision, not of review, is confined.  That supervision goes to two points: one is the area of the inferior jurisdiction and the qualifications and conditions of its exercise; the other is the observance of the law in the course of its exercise.
</ref> or otherwise a breach of the rules of natural justice, fraud, or an error of law so fundamental a character that it constitutes a defect amounting to a failure or excess of jurisdiction.<ref>Re Madden, et al. v The Queen (1977), 35 CCC (2d) 381 (Ont. H.C.J.),  [http://canlii.ca/t/hv0j5 1977 CanLII 2081] (ON SC){{perONSC|Henry J}}</ref>

Unlike an appeal, an application for certiorari can be brought at any point in a proceeding, and is not limited to the conclusion of the proceeding.

The right to certiorari is discretionary arising out of the inherent jurisdiction of the superior court. The right can be denied on the basis of "unnecessary delay" or lack of "good faith".<ref>
''R v Faulkner'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fwrtg 2013 ONSC 1824] (CanLII){{perONSC|Code J}}{{at|5}}<br>
''R v Papadopoulos'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1k1rd 2005 CanLII 8662] (ON CA), (2005), 201 CCC (3d) 363{{TheCourtONCA}}{{at|20}}<br>
</ref> 

;Third-party Right of Review
The scope of available review is more expansive when the petitioner is a third-party to the criminal proceedings.<ref>
''R v Awashish'', [http://canlii.ca/t/hvqb5 2018 SCC 45] (CanLII){{perSCC|Rowe J}} (9:0){{at|12}}
</ref>

For example, third-parties may apply for certiorari on pure errors of law.<ref>
{{ibid1|Awashish}}{{at|12}} 
''R v Stipo'', [http://canlii.ca/t/hwtx4 2019 ONCA 3] (CanLII){{perONCA|Watt JA}} (3:0){{at|50}}
</ref>

; Effect of Successful Application
A successful application of certiorari will quash the decision of the lower court.<ref>
''R v Brown'', [http://canlii.ca/t/ftv2q 2012 ONSC 6565] (CanLII){{perONSC|Fuerst J}}
</ref>

; Standard of Review
The reviewing judge must afford "greatest deference" to the lower court it is reviewing.<ref>
''R v Eckstein'', [http://canlii.ca/t/ftdnx 2012 MBCA 96] (CanLII), 293 CCC (3d) 292{{perMBCA|Chartier JA}}{{at|9}}<br>
''R v Catellier'', [http://canlii.ca/t/gvnm4 2016 MBQB 190] (CanLII){{perMBQB|McKelvey J}}{{at|3}}<br>
''R v Karpenko'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1jvw5 2005 MBQB 40] (CanLII){{perMBQB|Beard J}}{{at|11}}<br>
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}
===Limitations on Review of Certiorari===
Review by certiorari is "very limited". It is primarily a "jurisdictional review" or surveillance of statutory tribunals. <ref>
''R v Russell'', [http://canlii.ca/t/520t 2001 SCC 53] (CanLII), [2001] 2 SCR 804{{perSCC|McLachlin CJ}}{{at|19}}</ref>
The reviewing court cannot overturn a decision based merely on error in law or a decision "different from that which the reviewing court would reach." The court may only intervene where "the tribunal has acted in excess of its assigned statutory jurisdiction or has acted in breach of the principles of natural justice".<ref>Russell</ref>

The mere fact that the reviewing judge may have concluded differently does not entitle the court to intervene.<ref>
''R v Deschamplain'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1j5fv 2004 SCC 76] (CanLII){{perSCC|Major J}}{{at|37}}
</ref>

;Errors of Law 
Generally, errors of law are not reviewable by certiorari.<ref>
{{ibid1|Deschamplain}}{{at|17}}<br>
Russell {{at|19}}
</ref>

It is not sufficient that there be an error on a Charter issue, statutory interpretation, or admissibility/sufficient of evidence.
<ref>
''R v MacDonald'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1sxw4 2007 NSSC 255] (CanLII){{perNSSC|Murphy J}}</ref>

;Statutory Right of Appeal
Certiorari should generally be denied when the inferior court's enabling statute provides a right of appeal or where there is an adequate alternative remedy.
<ref>
{{supra1|Faulkner}}{{ats|4, 6}}</ref>

;When Not Available by Statute
By function of [{{CCCSec|776}} s. 776], no writs of certiorari are available where an appeal ins undertaken, or where an appeal was available but was not taken.

{{quotation|
; Where conviction or order not reviewable
776. No conviction or order shall be removed by certiorari
:(a) where an appeal was taken, whether or not the appeal has been carried to a conclusion; or
:(b) where the defendant appeared and pleaded and the merits were tried, and an appeal might have been taken, but the defendant did not appeal.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 710.
|[{{CCCSec|776}} CCC]
}}

; No Horizontal Review
A superior court has no jurisdiction to review a decision of another superior court judge.<ref>
Dagenais v CBC, [1994] 3 SCR 835, [http://canlii.ca/t/1frnq 1994 CanLII 39] (SCC){{perSCC|Lamer CJ}},{{atp|865}} (...certoriari does not lie against a decision of a superior court judge.")<br>
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

===Jurisdictional Errors===
A reviewing court's job is different from that of a court on a straight appeal. The role is only to review exercise of juridiction. <ref>
''R v Innocente'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1vhj4  2004 NSCA 18] (CanLII){{perNSCA|Hamilton JA}} ("The role of the reviewing judge on an application for certiorari is thus substantially different from that of a judge on appeal.  It is only when the judge whose decision is being reviewed has acted in excess of his or her jurisdiction or has breached the principles of natural justice that certiorari will be granted.")</ref>

Any failure on the part of the judge to "observe mandatory provisions of the Criminal Code" will result in a loss of jurisdiction.<ref>
Patterson v R., [http://canlii.ca/t/1xd5w 1970 CanLII 180] (SCC), [1970] SCR 409{{perSCC|Judson J}}
</ref>

Deciding an issue reserved only for a different forum is also jurisdictional error.<ref>
''Dubois v The Queen'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1ftsx 1986 CanLII 60] (SCC), [1986] 1 SCR 366{{perSCC|Estey J}}<br>
''R v Whynot'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1mr01 1994 CanLII 4130] (NS CA), (1994) 129 NSR (2d) 347{{perNSCA|Chipman JA}}{{at|13}} citing Dubois: ("In applying the wrong test for sufficiency, a preliminary inquiry judge does not commit jurisdictional error. In deciding an issue reserved to another forum, however, he does.")<br>
</ref>

There is a difference between errors of law and errors of jurisdiction. The distinction is on the process followed by the judge.<ref>
''R v Duncan'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1jd28 2004 CanLII 45468] (ON SC){{perONSC|Trafford J}}{{at|19}}
</ref>

A failure to consider all evidence or a consideration of an irrelevant consideration may amount to an error in jurisdiction.
<ref>
''R v Lee'', [http://canlii.ca/t/g6kvz 2014 ONSC 2471] (CanLII){{perONSC|MacDonnell J}}{{at|9}}<br>
{{Supra1|Deschamplain}}{{at|18}}<br>
</ref>

{{Reflist|2}}

===Specific Examples===
In practice, certiorari can be used to review search warrants
<ref>
e.g. ''Cohen c. Quebec (Attorney General)'', [http://canlii.ca/t/ft4k2 2012 QCCS 4715] (CanLII){{perQCCS|Zigman J}}<br>
''R v Firth'', [http://canlii.ca/t/2bnts 1987 CanLII 3546] (AB QB){{perABQB|Cavanagh J}}<br>
</ref>, orders of committal to stand trial<ref>
e.g. {{supra1|Brown}}</ref>, and quashing subpoenas.<ref>
''R v Ellis'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fstmj 2012 NSSC 329] (CanLII){{perNSSC|Pickup J}}</ref>

The following have been found to be jurisdictional errors:
* a preliminary inquiry judge committing an accused to stand trial where there is no evidence on an essential element of the offence charged<ref>  
''R v Sazant'',  [http://canlii.ca/t/1j5fx 2004 SCC 77] (CanLII){{perSCC|Major J}}<br>
''R v Deschamplain'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1j5fv 2004 SCC 76] (CanLII){{perSCC|Major J}}<br>
</ref>
* a preliminary inquiry judge committing an accused to stand trial based on inferences that cannot be reasonably drawn.<ref>
''R v Brown'', [http://canlii.ca/t/ftv2q 2012 ONSC 6565] (CanLII){{perONSC|Fuerst J}}{{at|21}}<br>
''R v Sheardown'', [http://canlii.ca/t/2bwkb 2010 ONSC 4235] (CanLII){{perONSC|T Ducharme J}}{{at|21}} ("To commit an accused on such a basis constitutes jurisdictional error as there is no evidence from which the inference or inferences reasonably can be drawn and thus, there would be an absence of evidence on an essential element of the charge.")
</ref>

{{Reflist|2}}
====Warrants====

Attacking search warrants by way of prerogative writ is generally not frequently used nor considered effective since nullifying a warrant will not necessarily make the evidence inadmissible at trial without establishing its exclusion under s. 24(2).<ref>
''R v Zevallos'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1p77b 1987 CanLII 169] (ON CA){{perONCA|Morden JA}}
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

====Subpeonas====
A subpoena may be quashed if the "party seeking to uphold a subpoena is not able to demonstrate that the witness would “likely” or “probably” have material evidence then certiorari may issue to quash the subpoenas".<ref>
''R v Harris'', [http://canlii.ca/t/6k4j  1994 CanLII 2986] (ON CA), (1994), 93 CCC (3d) 478 (Ont. C.A.){{TheCourtONCA}}
</ref>

{{Reflist|2}}
====Committal at Preliminary Inquiry====
:''See also [[Preliminary_Inquiry]]''
The decision on committal by a preliminary inquiry judge may be quashed by a writ of certiorari.<ref>
''Skogman v The Queen'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1lpfg 1984 CanLII 22] (SCC), [1984] 2 SCR 93{{perSCC|Estey J}}{{atp|167}}<br>
</ref>
This can include quashing of an order of committal or an order of discharge.<ref>
''R v Kamermans'', [http://canlii.ca/t/gn8k7 2016 ONCA 117] (CanLII){{TheCourtONCA}}{{at|13}}<br>
</ref>

In the context of a preliminary inquiry, it is within the inquiry judge's jurisdiction to draw inferences of fact in their decision of commit.<ref>
''Surette v Prince'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1f18d 1999 CanLII 1929] (NS SC){{perNSSC|Richard J}}<br>
</ref>
However, if the judge "preferred an inference favourable to an accused to an inference, also availed on the evidence, favourable to the Crown."<ref>
{{supra1|Kamermans}}{{at|15}}<br>
{{supra1|Sazant}}{{at|25}}<br>
</ref>

A failure to make the correct decision on the evidence may not necessarily result in a loss of jurisdiction. There must be an absence of even a "scintilla of evidence" supporting an essential element of the charge.<ref>
''R v Nichols'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1l8hd 2005 CanLII 26602] (ON SC){{perONSC|Durno J}}{{ats|38 to 40}} citing Skogman{{atp|173}}<br>
</ref> 

It will be an error of jurisdiction where tthe preliminary judge "failed to test the evidence adduced at the inquiry against the essential elements of the offence".<ref>
Kamermans{{at|14}}<br>
''R v Sazant'', [2004] 3 SCR 635, [http://canlii.ca/t/1j5fx 2004 SCC 77] (CanLII){{perSCC|Major J}}{{at|25}}<br>
</ref>
This also requires that the elements considered must be the correct ones.<ref>
Kamermans{{at|14}}<br>
{{ibid1|Sazant}}{{at|28}}<br>
</ref>

The consideration of irrelevant factors in committal may result in a loss of jurisdiction.<ref>
''R v Dubois'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1ftsx 1986 CanLII 60] (SCC), [1986] 1 SCR 366, (1986) 25 CCC (3d) 221 (SCC){{perSCC|Estey J}}<br>
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

==General Principles of Prohibition==
An order of prohibition is a common law "prerogative writ" power of a superior court to order a lower court or government agent from prohibiting the performance of certain duties.<ref>
''R v MPS'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fwsfs 2013 BCSC 525] (CanLII){{perBCSC|Romilly J}}
("It is the means whereby the inferior tribunal is prevented from exceeding its jurisdictional limits."){{at|16}}</ref>

A Court granting the order will "prevent [inferior judicial body] from exercising a jurisdiction it is not legally entitled to."<ref>
{{ibid1|MPS}}{{at|16}}
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

==General Principles of Habeas Corpus==
* See [[Habeas Corpus]]

==Court Authority to Order Recognizance on Writ Application==
{{quotation|
; General order for security by recognizance
779 (1) A court that has authority to quash a conviction, order or other proceeding on certiorari may prescribe by general order that no motion to quash any such conviction, order or other proceeding removed to the court by certiorari shall be heard unless the defendant has entered into a recognizance with one or more sufficient sureties, before one or more justices of the territorial division in which the conviction or order was made or before a judge or other officer, or has made a deposit to be prescribed with a condition that the defendant will prosecute the writ of certiorari at his own expense, without wilful delay, and, if ordered, will pay to the person in whose favour the conviction, order or other proceeding is affirmed his full costs and charges to be taxed according to the practice of the court where the conviction, order or proceeding is affirmed.
<br>
; Provisions of Part XXV
(2) The provisions of Part XXV [Effect and Enforcement of Recognizances] relating to forfeiture of recognizances apply to a recognizance entered into under this section.
<br>
R.S., c. C-34, s. 713.
<br>
[Annotation added]
|[{{CCCSec|779}} CCC]
}}

==Exemption From Certiorari and Habeas Corpus==
{{Quotation|
; Want of proof of order in council
781 (1) No order, conviction or other proceeding shall be quashed or set aside, and no defendant shall be discharged, by reason only that evidence has not been given
:(a) of a proclamation or order of the Governor in Council or the lieutenant governor in council;
:(b) of rules, regulations or by-laws made by the Governor in Council under an Act of Parliament or by the lieutenant governor in council under an Act of the legislature of the province; or
:(c) of the publication of a proclamation, order, rule, regulation or by-law in the Canada Gazette or in the official gazette for the province.

; Judicial notice
(2) Proclamations, orders, rules, regulations and by-laws mentioned in subsection (1) and the publication thereof shall be judicially noticed.
<br>
R.S., c. C-34, s. 715.
|[{{CCCSec|781}} CCC]
}}

{{quotation|
; Defect in form
782 No warrant of committal shall, on certiorari or habeas corpus, be held to be void by reason only of any defect therein, where
:(a) it is alleged in the warrant that the defendant was convicted; and
:(b) there is a valid conviction to sustain the warrant.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 716.
|[{{CCCSec|782}} CCC]
}}

==Other Forms of Judicial Review==

There are several other types of judicial review in the Criminal Code for certain circumstances:
* s. 745.6 permits judicial review of an order of parole ineligibility
* s. 83.05 permits judicial review of an order of Governor in Council who includes an organization on a list of terrorist entities
* Part XXI.1 permits [[Ministerial Review]]

==Consequences of Dismissing an Application==
{{Quotation|
; Effect of order dismissing application to quash
780 Where a motion to quash a conviction, order or other proceeding is refused, the order of the court refusing the application is sufficient authority for the clerk of the court forthwith to return the conviction, order or proceeding to the court from which or the person from whom it was removed, and for proceedings to be taken with respect thereto for the enforcement thereof.
<br>
R.S., c. C-34, s. 714.
|[{{CCCSec|780}} CCC]
}}

==Consequences of Granting an Application to Quash==
{{quotation|
; No action against official when conviction, etc., quashed
783 Where an application is made to quash a conviction, order or other proceeding made or held by a provincial court judge acting under Part XIX or a justice on the ground that he exceeded his jurisdiction, the court to which or the judge to whom the application is made may, in quashing the conviction, order or other proceeding, order that no civil proceedings shall be taken against the justice or provincial court judge or against any officer who acted under the conviction, order or other proceeding or under any warrant issued to enforce it.
<br>
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 783; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 203.
|[{{CCCSec|783}} CCC]
}}

==Appeal from Judicial Review==
* see [[Appeals_Other_Than_Verdicts_or_Sentences#Prerogative_Writs|Appeals Other than Verdicts or Sentences]]

==Case Digests==
* [[Mandamus, Certiorari, and Prohibition (Cases)]]

==See Also==
* [[Habeas Corpus]]
* [[Appeals]]