View source for Abuse of Process by Crown Counsel

{{LevelZero}}{{HeaderAbuse}}
==General Principles==
{{seealso|Abuse of Process|Role of the Crown}}
There is a high bar to be met before there can be a review of prosecutorial discretion. The judicial branch of government should not interfere with the administrative or accusatorial function of the executive branch of government unless there is "flagrant impropriety".<ref>
''Kostuch v Attorney General'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1p6l7 1995 CanLII 6244] (AB CA), (1995) 43 CR (4th) 81{{TheCourt}}{{atps|89 to 92}}</ref>

The discretionary decisions and motives of the Crown should not be "second-guessed" by the Courts unless there is "improper motives or bad faith".<ref>
{{CanLIIR|Power|1frvh|1994 CanLII 126 (CanLII)}}{{perSCC|L'Heureux‑Dubé J}}
</ref>

Any decisions made by the Crown that form part of the core prosecutorial discretion can only be reviewed for abuse of process.<ref>
{{CanLIIR|Nixon|flzgm|2011 SCC 34 (CanLII)}}{{perSCC|Charron J}}{{atL|flzgm|31}}<br>
{{CanLIIR|Anderson|g784t|2014 SCC 41 (CanLII)}}{{perSCC|Moldaver J}}{{atL|g784t|51}}<br>
</ref>
This would require circumstances of "flagrant impropriety".<ref>
''Krieger v Law Society (Alberta)'', [http://canlii.ca/t/51rs 2002 SCC 65] (CanLII), [2002] 3 SCR 372{{perSCC|Iacobucci and Major JJ}}{{atL|51rs|49}}<br>
</ref>

; Burden and Standard
The burden of proof is on the applicant to prove abuse of process on a balance of probabilities.<ref>
{{CanLIIR|Anderson|g784t|2014 SCC 41 (CanLII)}}{{perSCC|Moldaver J}}{{atL|g784t|52}}<br>
{{CanLIIR|Cook|1fr1f|1997 CanLII 392 (CanLII)}}{{perSCC|L’Heureux-Dubé J}}{{atL|1fr1f|62}}<br>
''R v O’Connor'', [1995] 4 SCR 411, [http://canlii.ca/t/1frdh 1995 CanLII 51] (SCC){{perSCC|L’Heureux-Dubé J}}{{atL|1frdh|69}}<br>
''R v Jolivet'', [http://canlii.ca/t/526w 2000 SCC 29] (CanLII), [2000] 1 SCR 751{{perSCC|Binnie J}}{{atL|526w|19}}<br>
</ref>

Conducting a prosecution in "a manner that contravenes the community's basic sense of decency and fair play and thereby calls into question the integrity of the system" will be a basis for a stay.<ref>
{{supra1|O'Connor}}{{atL|1frdh|63}}
</ref>

It is not necessary to make findings of misconduct or improper motives for a stay of proceedings to be entered.<ref>
{{supra1|O'Connor}}{{atL|1frdh|79}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Keyowski|1ftg7|1988 CanLII 74 (SCC)|, [1988] 1 SCR 657 (CanLII)}}{{perSCC|Wilson J}}<br>
</ref>

In certain circumstance, such as a repudiated plea agreement, the burden may shift to the Crown once the applicant establishes a "proper evidentiary foundation".<ref>
{{supra1|Nixon}}{{atsL|flzgm|60| to 62}}<br>
{{supra1|Anderson}}<br>
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

===Procedure===
The Court should be presented with "overwhelming evidence that the proceedings under scrutiny are unfair".<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Power|1frvh|1994 CanLII 126 (SCC)|, [1994] 1 SCR 601 (CanLII)}}{{perSCC|L'Heureux-Dubé J}}{{AtL|1frvh|17}}
</ref>

It is not always necessary that all cases require an evidential foundation of affidavits or viva voce testimony.<ref>
{{CanLIIR|Roach|g0bd5|2013 ABQB 472 (CanLII)}}{{perABQB|Graesser J}}{{atL|g0bd5|36}}
</ref>

{{Reflist|2}}

==Challenge to Prosecutorial Discretion==
{{seealso|Prosecutorial Discretion}}
The exercise of the powers of the Crown have been challenged in the following circumstances:
* Choice of which charges to pursue<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|KSV|2dxb8|1994 CanLII 9747 (NL CA)|, (1994) 89 CCC (3d) 477}}{{perNLCA|Gushue JA}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Lafrance|1twz9|1973 CanLII 35 (SCC)|, [1975] 2 SCR 201 (CanLII)}}{{perSCC|Martland J}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Johnson|1z6b2|1977 CanLII 229 (SCC)|, [1977] 2 SCR 646 (CanLII)}}{{perSCC|Dickson J}}<br>
</ref>
* intervention in a [[Private Prosecutions|private prosecution]]<ref>
''R v Baker'', [http://canlii.ca/t/22kkq 1986 CanLII 1151] (BC SC), (1986), 26 CCC (3d) 123{{perBCSC|Toy J}}<br>
''R v Faber'' (1987), 38 CCC (3d) 49, [http://canlii.ca/t/gcr90 1987 CanLII 6849] (QC CS){{perQCCS|Boilard J}}<br>
''R v Osiowy'' (1989), 50 CCC (3d) 189, [http://canlii.ca/t/gcrcr 1989 CanLII 5146] (SK CA){{perSKCA|Vancise JA}}{{atp|191}}<br>
Werring v BC (AG), [http://canlii.ca/t/1f1h9 1997 CanLII 4080] (BC CA), (1997), 122 CCC (3d) 343 (BCCA){{perBCCA|Esson JA}}<br>
</ref>
* [[Election|Crown Election]]<ref>
''R v Century 21 Ramos Realty Inc. and Ramos'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1p77d 1987 CanLII 171] (ON CA), (1987), 32 CCC (3d) 353{{TheCourt}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Kelly|6h32|1998 CanLII 7145 (ON CA)|, (1998) 128 CCC (3d) 206}}{{perONCA|Austin JA}}<br>
</ref>
* Consent to Re-Elect<ref>
''R v E(L)'', [http://canlii.ca/t/6k73 1994 CanLII 1785] (ON CA), (1994), 94 CCC (3d) 228{{perONCA|Finlayson JA}}<br>
</ref>
* Use of [[Direct Indictments]]<ref>
''R v Arviv'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1p6zs 1985 CanLII 161] (ON CA), (1985), 19 CCC (3d) 295{{perONCA-H|Martin JA}}<br>
''R v Moore'' (1986), [http://canlii.ca/t/gb6s5 1986 CanLII 4765] (MB CA), <br>
''R v Sterling'', [http://canlii.ca/t/g9cx8 1993 CanLII 9146] (SK CA), (1993), 84 CCC (3d) 65{{perSKCA|Bayda CJ and Cameron JA}} - stay overturned<br>
''R v Charlie'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1dxx8 1998 CanLII 4145] (BC CA), (1998), 126 CCC (3d) 513{{perBCCA| Southin J}} at pp. 521 to 522<br>
{{CanLIIR|Thomas|h3w84|2017 BCSC 841 (CanLII)}}{{perBCSC|Baird J}} <br>
</ref>
* Crown power to override of a judge and jury trial (s. 568) <ref>
''R v Hanneson'' (1987), 31 CCC (3d) 560, [http://canlii.ca/t/g96k6 1987 CanLII 6829] (ON SC){{perONSC|O'Discoll J}}</ref>
* Choice of witnesses to call in trial<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Cook|1fr1f|1997 CanLII 392 (SCC)|, [1997] 1 SCR 1113 (CanLII)}}{{perSCC|L’Heureux-Dubé J}}{{atL|1fr1f|21}}<br>
</ref>
* Stay of proceedings<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Light|1dbl7|1993 CanLII 1023 (BC CA)|, (1993) 78 CCC (3d) 221}}{{perBCCA|Wood J}}<br>
''R v Pasini'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1phnx 1991 CanLII 3916] (QC CA), (1991), 63 CCC (3d) 436{{perQCCA|Kaufman J}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Scott|1fsp3|1990 CanLII 27 (SCC)|, [1990] 3 SCR 979 (CanLII)}}{{Plurality}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Cole|4q2r|1998 CanLII 2425 (NS SC)|, (1998) 126 CCC (3d) 159}}{{perNSSC|Hood J}}<br>
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

==Malicious Prosecution==
To establish malicious prosecution the plaintiff must prove the following:<ref>
''Miazga v Kvello
Estate'', [http://canlii.ca/t/26g27 2009 SCC 51] (CanLII){{perSCC|Charron J}}<br>
see also: ''Nelles v Ontario'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1ft2z 1989 CanLII 77] (SCC), [1989] 2 SCR 170{{Plurality}}<br> 
Proulx v The Attorney General of Quebec, [http://canlii.ca/t/51zl 2001 SCC 66] (CanLII), [2001] 3 SCR 9{{perSCC|Iacobucci and Binnie JJ}}</ref>
#Initiated by the defendant;
#Terminated in favour of the plaintiff;
#Undertaking without reasonable and probable cause; and
#Motivated by malice or a primary purpose other than carrying the law into effect.

{{reflist|2}}

==Other Types of Prosecutions==
{{seealso|Fitness to Stand Trial}}

; Capacity of the Accused
The accused's loss of memory due to amnesia should not provide the basis for a stay of proceedings for abuse of process.<ref>
{{CanLIIR|Morrissey|1tmcq|2007 ONCA 770 (CanLII)}}{{perONCA|Blair JA}}{{AtL|1tmcq|75}}<Br>
''R v Desbiens'', [http://canlii.ca/t/2fg45 2010 QCCA 4] (CanLII)
</ref>
So long as the accused capable of "understanding the charges, conducting his trial, and adequately communicating with his counsel" then the right to fair trial will not be impacted.<ref>
{{supra1|Desbiens}}{{atL|2fg45|41}}
</ref>

; Serious Health Concerns
A prosecution may be stayed for abuse of process where the accused is "suffering from such serious health concerns that the continuation of the prosecution against him or her would be" abusive.<ref>
{{CanLIIR|Hong|gmfnq|2015 ONSC 4840 (CanLII)}}{{perONSC|Boswell J}}{{atL|gmfnq|24}}  refers to it as a Michalowsky application<br>
{{CanLIIR|Hong|gmcz9|2015 ONSC 5114 (CanLII)}}{{perONSC|Boswell J}} <br>
{{CanLIIR|Magomadova|gg1cm|2015 ABCA 26 (CanLII)}}{{perABCA|Bielby  JA}}<br>
{{CanLIIR|TGP|1wnv6|1996 CanLII 8405 (BC CA)}}{{perBCCA|McEachern JA}}<br>
''R v J-GR'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1nnrl 2006 CanLII 21072] (ON SC){{perONSC|Wein J}}<br>
''R v Michalowsky'', [1991] OJ No 3611 {{NOCANLII}}<br>
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

==Repudiation of a Plea Deal==
The Crown is generally expected to honour agreements made.<ref>
''R v Goodwin'', (1981),  21 C.R. (3d) 263 (N.S.S.C.){{NOCANLII}}<br> 
''R v Betesh'', [1975] OJ No 36 (Ont. Ct. J.), [http://canlii.ca/t/htwmd 1975 CanLII 1451] (ON CJ){{perONCJ|Graburn J}}<br>
''R v Smith'', [1974] BCJ No. 776 (SC), [http://canlii.ca/t/gd08g 1974 CanLII 1653] (BC SC){{perBCSC|Berge J}}<br>
</ref>

; When Courts Can Review
The act of negotiating a plea arrangement and revoking one is "is an act of prosecutorial discretion".<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Nixon|flzgm|2011 SCC 34 (CanLII)|, [2011] 2 SCR 566}}{{perSCC|Charron J}}{{atsL|flzgm|29| to 31}}
</ref>
It is only reviewable by a court on the basis of abuse of process.<ref>
{{ibid1|Nixon}}{{atL|flzgm|31}} ("Thus, it follows that the Crown’s ultimate decision to resile from the plea agreement and to continue the prosecution is subject to the principles set out in Krieger:  it is only subject to judicial review for abuse of process.")
</ref>

Mere repudiation without prejudice or conduct that amounts to an abuse of process is not reviewable.<Ref>
{{ibid1|Nixon}}{{AtL|flzgm|45}}
</ref>

Courts should be careful before they engage in any attempt to "second-guess" the Crown's motives behind their decision to repudiate an agreement.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Power|1frvh|1994 CanLII 126 (SCC)|, [1994] 1 SCR 601 (CanLII)}}{{perSCC|L'Heureux-Dubé J}}("courts should be careful before they attempt to "second‑guess" the prosecutor's motives when he or she makes a decision.")
</ref>
There should be "conspicuous evidence" of some improper motive, bad faith, or acts so wrong that it "violates the conscience of the community" such that it would be "gravely unfair" to continue.<ref>
{{ibid1|Power}}("conspicuous evidence of improper motives or of bad faith or of an act so wrong that it violates the conscience of the community, such that it would genuinely be unfair and indecent to proceed")<br>
</ref>
Such cases are "extremely rare".<ref>
{{ibid1|Power}}
</ref>

; Effect of Repudiation
A repudiation of a plea agreement between Crown and defence may amount to a breach of s. 7 of the Charter or a breach of the common law abuse of process doctrine.<ref>
see ''R v M(R)'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1pl1d 2006 CanLII 32999] (ON SC), [2006] OJ No 3875{{perONSC|Hill J}}
</ref>

; Crown Cannot be Enforced to Honour Agreement
The Court has no power to force the Crown to honour a prior agreement that has since been revoked as if it were some contractual undertaking.<Ref>
{{supra1|Nixon}}{{atL|flzgm|45}} ("A plea agreement cannot be summarily enforced by the court as any other lawyers’ undertaking, as Ms. Nixon contends."), see also paras 44 to 49.
</ref>

; Purpose of Protecting Plea Deals
Agreements between counsel, whether on plea or otherwise, ensure an efficient and effective administration of justice. <ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Dewald|1fbs6|2001 CanLII 4721 (ON CA)|, (2001) 156 CCC (3d) 405}}{{perONCA| Laskin JA}} (2:1)
</ref>

; Basis to Repudiate Agreement
The circumstances where repudiation should be considered acceptable must remain "very rare".<ref>
{{supra1|Nixon}}{{atL|flzgm|48}} ("As a result, I reiterate that the situations in which the Crown  can properly repudiate a resolution agreement are, and must remain, very rare.")
</ref>

It is suggested that the Crown may be able to repudiate a plea and sentence agreement where there Crown subsequently discovers additional charges pending against the accused.<ref>
e.g. {{CanLIIR|Wood|1z8z6|2007 NSPC 39 (CanLII)}}{{perNSPC|Tufts J}}
</ref>

Where a summary election was contingent on a guilty plea that it ultimately reneged by defence, the Crown has the ability to re-elect to proceed by indictment.<ref>
''R v De La Cruz'', [http://canlii.ca/t/5zsr 2003 CanLII 45233] (ON CA){{TheCourtONCA}}
</ref>

; Abuse by Crown Refusing Defence Settlement Proposal
The Crown discretion to choose to accept (or reject) pleas for lesser offences is subject to abuse of process consideration.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Conway|1ft4d|1989 CanLII 66 (SCC)|, [1989] 1 SCR 1659 (CanLII)}}{{perSCC|L'Heureux‑Dubé J}}
</ref>
It would only be in "exceptional circumstances that the exercise of discretion of this type would be abusive.<Ref>
{{ibid1|Conway}}
</ref>

; Crown Response to Defence Repudiation of Plea Deal
Where there is an agreement to elect to proceed summarily in exchange for a guilty plea, the Crown has the right to have the election struck and replaced with an indictable election, should the defence repudiate the agreement.<ref>
''R v De La Cruz'', [http://canlii.ca/t/6x2k 2003 CanLII 42069] (ON CA){{TheCourtONCA}}<br>
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

==Other Conduct==

; Breach of Solicitor-Client Privilege
A stay may be warranted where the Crown gains access to defence documents that are protected by solicitor-client privilege.<ref>
''R v Bruce Power Inc.'', [http://canlii.ca/t/24nrk 2009 ONCA 573] (CanLII){{perONCA| Armstrong JA}}<br>
{{CanLIIR|Rudolph|hpgwv|2017 NSSC 333 (CanLII)}}{{perNSSC|Boudreau J}}
</ref>
There mere possession of these documents creates a rebuttable presumption of prejudice.<ref>
{{ibid1|Bruce Power Inc.}}</ref>

; Interview of Witnesses
The pre-charge interview of complainants by the Crown may raise some difficulties but is not abusive ''per se'' and may serve as a reasonable practice to avoid harmful or arbitrary results.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Regan|51v8|2002 SCC 12 (CanLII)|, [2002] 1 SCR 297}}{{perSCC|LeBel J}}{{atL|51v8|91}}<br>
</ref>

; Judge Shopping
Any form of "judge shopping" by the Crown is "unacceptable" as it is unfair and "tarnishes the reputation of the justice system".<ref>
{{ibid1|Regan}}{{atL|51v8|61}}
</ref>

; Accidental Breach of Privilege
Where the Crown accidentally discloses privileged information that would tend to identify an informant is not sufficient grounds to warrant a stay.<ref>
{{CanLIIR|Bains|294qt|2010 BCCA 178 (CanLII)}}{{perBCCA|D Smith JA}}
</ref>

; Promise Not to Prosecute
A promise to not prosecute an accused if they told the truth does not prohibit the Crown from prosecuting the accused where it was demonstrably shown that the accused lied in giving the statement.<ref>
{{CanLIIR|MacDonald|gbvp9|1990 CanLII 11021 (ON CA)}}{{perONCA|Zuber JA}}
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

===Prosecutions After Termination of Charges===

; Re-Laying Charges
A re-laying of an information after withdrawing charges at trial or on preliminary inquiry can be found to be abusive.<ref>
{{CanLIIR|Sabourin|1qxjv|2007 MBQB 53 (CanLII)}}{{perMBQB|Suche J}} - Judge comments that there should have been a direct indictment instead<br>
''R v Ferguson'', [1978] AJ No 1001 (ABPC){{perABPC|Porter PCJ}} - Crown withdrew charges on day or trial and re-laid it a few days later<br>
''R v Weightman and Cunningham'', [1977] O.J. No 2592 (Ont. P.C. Crim. Div.), [http://canlii.ca/t/htz2k 1977 CanLII 1947] (ON CJ){{perONCJ|Zabel PCJ}} - Crown pulls charges mid-trial and re-laid them, the judge found the conduct "vexatious and oppressive"<br>
''R v Cole'', [1998] N.S.J. No. 245 (N.S.S.C.), [http://canlii.ca/t/4q2r 1998 CanLII 2425] (NS SC){{perNSSC|Hood J}}<br>
</ref>
However, a stay during a trial is not necessarily always going to be abusive.<ref>
''R v Beaudry'', [http://canlii.ca/t/gbqf1 1966 CanLII 537] (BC CA), 1966 CarswellBC 114 (C.A.){{perBCCA|Bull JA}}<br>
''R v Smith'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1d9sp 1992 CanLII 12818] (BC CA), 1992 CarswellBC 407 (C.A.){{perBCCA| Hollinrake  JA}}<br> 
{{CanLIIRP|Scott|1fsp3|1990 CanLII 27 (SCC)|, [1990] 3 SCR 979 (CanLII)}}{{perSCC|Cory J}}<br>
''R v Panarctic Oils Ltd.'', [http://canlii.ca/t/gb1zc 1982 CanLII 2990] (NWT SC), 1982 CarswellNWT 37 (S.C.){{perNWTSC|de Weerdt J}}<br>
''R v Ball'', [http://canlii.ca/t/htv3w 1978 CanLII 2268] (ON CA), 1978 CarswellOnt 1227 (C.A.){{perONCA|Jessup JA}}<br>
</ref>
In has been found to be permissible where there is no "oppression, prejudice, harassment, or manifest hardship upon the accused".<ref>
{{ibid1|Ball}}{{atL|htv3w|19}}<br>
{{supra1|Roach}}{{atL|g0bd5|45}}<br>
</ref>

An improperly laid hybrid charge withdrawn after the 6 month limitation period and then replaced with the proper charges and elected to proceed by indictment may be sufficient to stay a charge.<REf>
{{CanLIIR|Boutilier|1mpsz|1995 CanLII 4169 (NSCA)}}{{perNSCA|Freeman JA}}
</ref>

; Prosecution On Re-Trial
Repeated prosecutions against an accused for the same offence would fall under the residual category of the abuse doctrine and is an example "in which the integrity of the justice system is implicated in the absence of state misconduct".<ref>
{{CanLIIR|Badgerow|g6g42|2014 ONCA 272 (CanLII)}}{{perONCA|Strathy JA}}{{atL|g6g42|199}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Babos|g36g4|2014 SCC 16 (CanLII)|, [2014] 1 SCR 309}}{{perSCC|Moldaver J}}{{AtL|g36g4|37}} ("Two points of interest arise from this description.  First, while it is generally true that the residual category will be invoked as a result of state misconduct, this will not always be so.  Circumstances may arise where the integrity of the justice system is implicated in the absence of misconduct.  Repeatedly prosecuting an accused for the same offence after successive juries have been unable to reach a verdict stands as an example")
</ref>

There is some suggestion that an attempt to prosecute an accused after two or three failed trials is inherently abusive and the charges should be stayed except in "very rare cases".<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Keyowski|1ftg7|1988 CanLII 74 (SCC)|, [1988] 1 SCR 657}}{{perSCC|Wilson J}}<br>
''R v Jack'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1fr0m 1997 CanLII 356] (SCC), [1997] 2 SCR 334, aff’g (1996), [http://canlii.ca/t/1fllh 1996 CanLII 1889] (MB CA), 113 Man. R. (2d) 260 (C.A.)<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Hunter|1fbwq|2001 CanLII 5637 (ON CA)|, 54 OR (3d) 695 (C.A.)}}{{perONCA|Goudge JA}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|L(A)|1grtl|2004 CanLII 32136 (ON CA)|, 183 CCC (3d) 193 (Ont. C.A.)}}{{TheCourtONCA}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Taillefer|1g992|2003 SCC 70 (CanLII)|, [2003] 3 SCR 307}}{{perSCC|LeBel J}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Beaulac|1fqnv|1999 CanLII 684 (SCC)|, [1999] 1 SCR 768}}{{perSCC|Bastarache J}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Ellard|23w6b|2009 SCC 27 (CanLII)|, [2009] 2 SCR 19}}{{perSCC|Abella J}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Vanezis|1pzst|2006 CanLII 37954 (ON CA)|, 83 OR (3d) 241 (C.A.)}}{{perONCA|Moldaver JA}}<br>
cf. {{supra1|Badgerow}}
</ref>

Consideration on this issue should include whether the Crown had a full opportunity to put its case to the jury.<Ref>
{{supra1|Badgerow}}{{atL|g6g42|196}} ("I do not find it necessary to resolve this issue [relating to abuse through re-prosecution], because highly probative and admissible evidence was excluded at the previous trials. As a result, the Crown did not have a full opportunity to put its case before the jury at any of the previous trials. Moreover, the application judge’s assumption that the evidence will be not be stronger at a fourth trial cannot stand.")
</ref>
{{reflist|2}}

==See Also==
* [[Abuse of Process by Law Enforcement]]