View source for Judicial Stay of Proceedings

{{Currency|January 2015}}
{{LevelZero}}{{HeaderPreTrial}}

==General Principles==
{{Seealso|Stay of Proceedings|Stay of Proceedings by Crown}}
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.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Jewitt|1ftxr|1985 CanLII 47 (SCC)|[1985] 2 SCR 128}}{{perSCC|Dickson CJ}} (7:0)<br> 
{{CanLIIRP|Kalanj|1ft46|1989 CanLII 63 (SCC)|[1989] 1 SCR 1594}}{{perSCC-H|McIntyre J}} (3:2)<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Power|1frvh|1994 CanLII 126 (SCC)|[1994] 1 SCR 601}}{{perSCC|L'Heureux‑Dubé J}} (4:3)<br>
</ref> 
The principle of abuse of process arises from the common law.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|O'Connor|1frdh|1995 CanLII 51 (SCC)|[1995] 4 SCR 411}}{{perSCC|L'Heureux‑Dubé J}}</ref> 
It is now superseded by the Charter.<ref>
e.g. {{CanLIIRP|Regan|51v8|2002 SCC 12 (CanLII)|[2002] 1 SCR 297}}{{perSCC|LeBel J}} (5:4)</ref>

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'".<ref>
{{supra1|O'Connor}}<br>
see {{CanLIIRP|Carosella|1fr3p|1997 CanLII 402 (SCC)|[1997] 1 SCR 80}}{{perSCC|Sopinka J}} <br>
{{CanLIIRP|La|1fr18|1997 CanLII 309 (SCC)|[1997] 2 SCR 680}}{{perSCC|Sopinka J}}<br>
{{supra1|Regan}}<br>
{{CanLIIRPC|Taillefer; R v Duguay|1g992|2003 SCC 70 (CanLII)|[2003] 3 SCR 307}}{{perSCC|LeBel J}}<br>
</ref>

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".<REf>
{{CanLIIRP|Jewitt|1ftxr|1985 CanLII 47 (SCC)|[1985] 2 SCR 128}}{{perSCC-H|Dickson CJ}}, at p. 148<br>
{{supra1|Mack}}, at p. 944<Br>
{{CanLIIR|Ramelson|jt4wv|2022 SCC 44 (CanLII)}}{{atL|jt4wv|32}}
</ref>

; Ultimate Remedy
A stay of proceedings is considered the “ultimate remedy” that is absolutely final, preventing the court from ever adjudicating the matter.<ref>
{{CanLIIRPC|Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration) v Tobiass|1fr01|1997 CanLII 322 (SCC)|[1997] 3 SCR 391, 118 CCC (3d) 443}}{{TheCourtSCC}}{{atL|1fr01|86}}</ref>

Consequently, there is a high threshold on a stay of proceedings. It is only permissible in the “clearest of cases”.<ref>
{{supra1|Regan}}{{atL|51v8|53}}<br>
</ref>

A clearest of case is one in which the integrity of the justice system is implicated.<ref> 
{{CanLIIRP|Antinello|2dc13|1995 ABCA 117 (CanLII)|165 AR 122, 97 CCC (3d) 126}}{{perABCA|Kerans JA}} (3:0)<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Curragh|1fr2v|1997 CanLII 381 (SCC)|[1997] 1 SCR 537, 113 CCC (3d) 481}}{{perSCC|La Forest and Cory J}} (7:2)<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Spence|fl8t9|2011 ONSC 2406 (CanLII)|85 CR (6th) 72}}{{perONSC|Howden J}}<br> 
{{CanLIIRP|Bjelland|24wcw|2009 SCC 38 (CanLII)|[2009] 2 SCR 651}}{{perSCC|Rothstein J}} (4:3)<br> 
{{CanLIIRP|RPS|2f5tn|2010 ABQB 418 (CanLII)|503 AR 233}}{{perABQB|Thomas J}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Robinson|5s1f|1999 ABCA 367 (CanLII)|250 AR 201}}{{perABCA|McFadyen JA}}<br> 
{{CanLIIRP|Latimer|1fr3w|1997 CanLII 405 (SCC)|[1997] 1 SCR 217, 112 CCC (3d) 193}}{{perSCC|Lamer CJ}}<br> 
{{CanLIIRP|Gangl|fp6bp|2011 ABCA 357 (CanLII)|532 WAC 337}}{{TheCourtABCA}}<br>
</ref>

; Improper Use of a Stay
A stay should not be used "to discipline the police or to attempt to redress a past wrong".<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Samuels|1vx48|2008 ONCJ 85 (CanLII)|76 WCB (2d) 588}}{{perONCJ|Nakatsuru J}}{{atsL|1vx48|62|}}, {{atsL-np|1vx48|83|}}<br>
</ref>

; 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.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Waugh|23jxr|2009 NBCA 23 (CanLII)|246 CCC (3d) 116}}{{perNBCA|Drapeau CJ}}
</ref>

; 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.<ref>
{{CanLIIRPC|Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Tobiass|1fr01|1997 CanLII 322 (SCC)|[1997] 3 SCR 391}}{{TheCourtSCC}}
</ref>

; Standard of Appellate Review
A decision to stay a proceeding under s. 24(1) of the Charter is accorded deference on review.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Bellusci|fs7kv|2012 SCC 44 (CanLII)|[2012] 2 SCR 509}}{{perSCC-H|Fish J}} (7:0){{atL|fs7kv|17}}<br>
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}
===Grounds for Stays of Proceeding===
* [[Abuse of Process]] (s. 7 of Charter)
** [[Abuse of Process by Law Enforcement|Police Misconduct]] (violence, trickery, etc)
** [[Abuse of Process by Crown Counsel|Crown misconduct]]
** [[Lost or Destroyed Evidence|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

==Case Digests==
* [[Stay of Proceedings (Cases)]]