Abuse of Process by Crown Counsel: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 20:29, 12 January 2019

< Procedure and Practice
< Pre-Trial and Trial Matters
< Abuse of Process

General Principles

See also: Abuse of Process and 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 is "flagrant impropriety".^[1]

The discretionary decisions and motives of the Crown should not be "second-guessed" by the Courts unless there is "improper motives or bad faith".^[2]

Any decisions made by the Crown that form part of the core prosecutorial discretion can only be reviewed for abuse of process.^[3] This would require circumstances of "flagrant impropriety".^[4]

Burden and Standard
The burden of proof is on the applicant to prove abuse of process on a balance of probabilities.^[5]

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.^[6]

It is not necessary to make findings of misconduct or improper motives for a stay of proceedings to be entered.^[7]

In certain circumstance, such as a repudiated plea agreement, the burden may shift to the Crown once the applicant establishes a "proper evidentiary foundation".^[8]

↑ Kostuch v Attorney General, 1995 CanLII 6244 (AB CA), (1995) 43 CR (4th) 81, per curiam at pp. 89 to 92
↑ R v Power, 1994 CanLII 126 (SCC), [1994] 1 SCR 601, per L'Heureux‑Dubé J
↑ R v Nixon, 2011 SCC 34 (CanLII), per Charron J at para 31
R v Anderson, 2014 SCC 41 (CanLII), per Moldaver J at para 51
↑ Krieger v Law Society (Alberta), 2002 SCC 65 (CanLII), [2002] 3 SCR 372, per Iacobucci and Major JJ at para 49
↑ R v Anderson, 2014 SCC 41 (CanLII), per Moldaver J, at para 52
R v Cook, 1997 CanLII 392 (SCC), [1997] 1 SCR 1113, per L’Heureux-Dubé J at para. 62
R v O’Connor, [1995] 4 SCR 411, 1995 CanLII 51 (SCC), per L’Heureux-Dubé J at para. 69
R v Jolivet, 2000 SCC 29 (CanLII), [2000] 1 SCR 751, per Binnie J, at para. 19
↑ O'Connor, supra at para 63
↑ O'Connor, supra at para 79
R v Keyowski, [1988] 1 SCR 657, 1988 CanLII 74 (SCC), per Wilson J
↑ Nixon, supra at para 60 to 62
Anderson, supra

Procedure

The Court should be presented with "overwhelming evidence that the proceedings under scrutiny are unfair".^[1]

It is not always necessary that all cases require an evidential foundation of affidavits or viva voce testimony.^[2]

↑ R v Power, [1994] 1 SCR 601, 1994 CanLII 126 (SCC), per L'Heureux-Dubé J at para 17
↑ R v Roach, 2013 ABQB 472 (CanLII), per Graesser J, at para 36

Challenge to Prosecutorial Discretion

See also: Prosecutorial Discretion

The exercise of the powers of the Crown have been challenged in the following circumstances:

Choice of which charges to pursue^[1]
intervention in a private prosecution^[2]
Crown Election^[3]
Consent to Re-Elect^[4]
Use of Direct Indictments^[5]
Crown power to override of a judge and jury trial (s. 568) ^[6]
Choice of witnesses to call in trial^[7]
Stay of proceedings^[8]

↑ R v V.(K.S.), 1994 CanLII 9747 (NL CA), (1994) 89 CCC (3d) 477, per Gushue JA
R v Lafrance, [1975] 2 SCR 201, 1973 CanLII 35 (SCC), per Martland J
R v Johnson, [1977] 2 SCR 646, 1977 CanLII 229 (SCC), per Dickson J
↑ R v Baker, 1986 CanLII 1151 (BC SC), (1986), 26 CCC (3d) 123, per Toy J
R v Faber (1987), 38 CCC (3d) 49, 1987 CanLII 6849 (QC CS), per Boilard J
R v Osiowy (1989), 50 CCC (3d) 189, 1989 CanLII 5146 (SK CA), per Vancise JA, at p. 191
Werring v BC (AG), 1997 CanLII 4080 (BC CA), (1997), 122 CCC (3d) 343 (BCCA), per Esson JA
↑ R v Century 21 Ramos Realty Inc. and Ramos, 1987 CanLII 171 (ON CA), (1987), 32 CCC (3d) 353, per curiam
R v Kelly, 1998 CanLII 7145 (ON CA), (1998) 128 CCC (3d) 206, per Austin JA
↑ R v E.(L.), 1994 CanLII 1785 (ON CA), (1994), 94 CCC (3d) 228, per Finlayson JA
↑ R v Arviv, 1985 CanLII 161 (ON CA), (1985), 19 CCC (3d) 295, per Martin JA
R v Moore (1986), 1986 CanLII 4765 (MB CA), <
R v Sterling, 1993 CanLII 9146 (SK CA), (1993), 84 CCC (3d) 65, per Bayda CJ and Cameron JA - stay overturned
R v Charlie, 1998 CanLII 4145 (BC CA), (1998), 126 CCC (3d) 513, per Southin J at pp. 521 to 522
R v Thomas, 2017 BCSC 841 (CanLII), per Baird J
↑ R v Hanneson (1987), 31 CCC (3d) 560, 1987 CanLII 6829 (ON SC), per O'Discoll J
↑ R v Cook, [1997] 1 SCR 1113, 1997 CanLII 392 (SCC), per L’Heureux-Dubé J, at para 21
↑ R v Light, 1993 CanLII 1023 (BC CA), (1993) 78 CCC (3d) 221, per Wood J
R v Pasini, 1991 CanLII 3916 (QC CA), (1991), 63 CCC (3d) 436, per Kaufman J
R v Scott, [1990] 3 SCR 979, 1990 CanLII 27 (SCC)
R v Cole, 1998 CanLII 2425 (NS SC), (1998) 126 CCC (3d) 159, per Hood J

Malicious Prosecution

To establish malicious prosecution the plaintiff must prove the following:^[1]

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.

↑ Miazga v Kvello Estate, 2009 SCC 51 (CanLII), per Charron J
see also: Nelles v Ontario, 1989 CanLII 77 (SCC), [1989] 2 SCR 170
Proulx v The Attorney General of Quebec, 2001 SCC 66 (CanLII), [2001] 3 SCR 9, per Iacobucci and Binnie JJ

Other Types of Prosecutions

See also: 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.^[1]

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.^[2]

↑ R v Morrissey, 2007 ONCA 770 (CanLII), per Blair JA at para 75
↑ R v Hong, 2015 ONSC 4840 (CanLII), per Boswell J at para 24 refers to it as a Michalowsky application
R v Hong, 2015 ONSC 5114 (CanLII), per Boswell J
R v Magomadova, 2015 ABCA 26 (CanLII), per Bielby JA
R v TGP, 1996 CanLII 8405 (BC CA), per McEachern JA
R v J.-G.R., 2006 CanLII 21072 (ON SC), per Wein J
R v Michalowsky, [1991] O.J. No. 3611 (*no CanLII links)

Repudiation of a Plea Deal

The Crown is generally expected to honour agreements made.^[1]

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.^[2]

Agreements between counsel, whether on plea or otherwise, ensure an efficient and effective administration of justice. ^[3]

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.^[4]

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.^[5]

↑ R v Goodwin, (1981), 21 C.R. (3d) 263 (N.S.S.C.)(*no CanLII links)
R v Betesh, [1975] O.J. No. 36 (Ont. Ct. J.), 1975 CanLII 1451 (ON CJ), per Graburn J
R v Smith, [1974] BCJ No. 776 (SC), 1974 CanLII 1653 (BC SC), per Berge J
↑ see R v M.(R.), 2006 CanLII 32999 (ON SC), [2006] O.J. No. 3875, per Hill J
↑ R v Dewald, 2001 CanLII 4721 (ON CA), (2001) 156 CCC (3d) 405, per Laskin JA (2:1)
↑ e.g. R v Wood, 2007 NSPC 39 (CanLII), per Tufts J
↑ R v De La Cruz, 2003 CanLII 45233 (ON CA), per curiam

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.^[1] There mere possession of these documents creates a rebuttable presumption of prejudice.^[2]

Re-Laying Charges
A re-laying of an information after withdrawing charges at trial or on preliminary inquiry can be found to be abusive.^[3] However, a stay during a trial is not necessarily always going to be abusive.^[4]In has been found to be permissible where there is no "oppression, prejudice, harassment, or manifest hardship upon the accused".^[5]

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.^[6]

↑ R v Bruce Power Inc., 2009 ONCA 573 (CanLII), per Armstrong JA
R v Rudolph, 2017 NSSC 333 (CanLII), per Boudreau J
↑ Bruce Power Inc., ibid.
↑ R v Sabourin, 2007 MBQB 53 (CanLII), per Suche J - Judge comments that there should have been a direct indictment instead
R v Ferguson, [1978] AJ No 1001 (ABPC), per Porter PCJ - Crown withdrew charges on day or trial and re-laid it a few days later
R v Weightman and Cunningham, [1977] O.J. No 2592 (Ont. P.C. Crim. Div.), 1977 CanLII 1947 (ON CJ), per Zabel PCJ - Crown pulls charges mid-trial and re-laid them, the judge found the conduct "vexatious and oppressive"
R v Cole, [1998] N.S.J. No. 245 (N.S.S.C.), 1998 CanLII 2425 (NS SC), per Hood J
↑ R v Beaudry, 1966 CanLII 537 (BC CA), 1966 CarswellBC 114 (C.A.), per Bull JA
R v Smith, 1992 CanLII 12818 (BC CA), 1992 CarswellBC 407 (C.A.), per Hollinrake JA
R v Scott, [1990] 3 SCR 979, 1990 CanLII 27 (SCC), per Cory J
R v Panarctic Oils Ltd., 1982 CanLII 2990 (NWT SC), 1982 CarswellNWT 37 (S.C.), per de Weerdt J
R v Ball, 1978 CanLII 2268 (ON CA), 1978 CarswellOnt 1227 (C.A.), per Jessup JA
↑ Ball, ibid. at para 19
Roach, supra at para 45
↑ R v Regan, [2002] 1 SCR 297, 2002 SCC 12 (CanLII), per LeBel J at para 91

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 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>
-R v Power, [http://canlii.ca/t/1frvh 1994 CanLII 126] (SCC), [1994] 1 SCR 601{{perSCC|L'Heureux‑Dubé J}}
+''R v Power'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1frvh 1994 CanLII 126] (SCC), [1994] 1 SCR 601{{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>
-R v Nixon, [http://canlii.ca/t/flzgm 2011 SCC 34] (CanLII){{perSCC|Charron J}} at para 31<br>
+''R v Nixon'', [http://canlii.ca/t/flzgm 2011 SCC 34] (CanLII){{perSCC|Charron J}} at para 31<br>
-R v Anderson, [http://canlii.ca/t/g784t 2014 SCC 41] (CanLII){{perSCC|Moldaver J}} at para 51<Br>
+''R v Anderson'', [http://canlii.ca/t/g784t 2014 SCC 41] (CanLII){{perSCC|Moldaver J}} at para 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}} at para 49<br>
@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 '''Burden and Standard'''<br>
 The burden of proof is on the applicant to prove abuse of process on a balance of probabilities.<Ref>
-R v Anderson, [http://canlii.ca/t/g784t 2014 SCC 41] (CanLII){{perSCC|Moldaver J}}, at para 52<Br>
+''R v Anderson'', [http://canlii.ca/t/g784t 2014 SCC 41] (CanLII){{perSCC|Moldaver J}}, at para 52<Br>
-R v Cook, [http://canlii.ca/t/1fr1f 1997 CanLII 392] (SCC), [1997] 1 SCR 1113{{perSCC|L’Heureux-Dubé J}} at para. 62<br>
+''R v Cook'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1fr1f 1997 CanLII 392] (SCC), [1997] 1 SCR 1113{{perSCC|L’Heureux-Dubé J}} at para. 62<br>
 R v O’Connor, [1995] 4 SCR 411, [http://canlii.ca/t/1frdh 1995 CanLII 51] (SCC){{perSCC|L’Heureux-Dubé J}} at para. 69<br>
-R v Jolivet, [http://canlii.ca/t/526w 2000 SCC 29] (CanLII), [2000] 1 SCR 751{{perSCC|Binnie J}}, at para. 19<br>
+''R v Jolivet'', [http://canlii.ca/t/526w 2000 SCC 29] (CanLII), [2000] 1 SCR 751{{perSCC|Binnie J}}, at para. 19<br>
 </ref>
@@ Line 31: / Line 31: @@
 It is not necessary to make findings of misconduct or improper motives for a stay of proceedings to be entered.<Ref>
 O'Connor{{supra}} at para 79<Br>
-R v Keyowski, [1988] 1 SCR 657, [http://canlii.ca/t/1ftg7 1988 CanLII 74] (SCC){{perSCC|Wilson J}}<Br>
+''R v Keyowski'', [1988] 1 SCR 657, [http://canlii.ca/t/1ftg7 1988 CanLII 74] (SCC){{perSCC|Wilson J}}<Br>
 </ref>
@@ Line 43: / Line 43: @@
 ===Procedure===
 The Court should be presented with "overwhelming evidence that the proceedings under scrutiny are unfair".<Ref>
-R v Power, [1994] 1 SCR 601, [http://canlii.ca/t/1frvh 1994 CanLII 126] (SCC){{perSCC|L'Heureux-Dubé J}} at para 17
+''R v Power'', [1994] 1 SCR 601, [http://canlii.ca/t/1frvh 1994 CanLII 126] (SCC){{perSCC|L'Heureux-Dubé J}} at para 17
 </ref>
 It is not always necessary that all cases require an evidential foundation of affidavits or viva voce testimony.<Ref>
-R v Roach, [http://canlii.ca/t/g0bd5 2013 ABQB 472] (CanLII){{perABQB|Graesser J}}, at para 36
+''R v Roach'', [http://canlii.ca/t/g0bd5 2013 ABQB 472] (CanLII){{perABQB|Graesser J}}, at para 36
 </ref>
@@ Line 57: / Line 57: @@
 * Choice of which charges to pursue<ref>
 R v V.(K.S.), [http://canlii.ca/t/2dxb8 1994 CanLII 9747] (NL CA), (1994) 89 CCC (3d) 477{{perNLCA|Gushue JA}}<br>
-R v Lafrance, [1975] 2 SCR 201, [http://canlii.ca/t/1twz9 1973 CanLII 35] (SCC){{perSCC|Martland J}}<br>
+''R v Lafrance'', [1975] 2 SCR 201, [http://canlii.ca/t/1twz9 1973 CanLII 35] (SCC){{perSCC|Martland J}}<br>
-R v Johnson, [1977] 2 SCR 646, [http://canlii.ca/t/1z6b2 1977 CanLII 229] (SCC){{perSCC|Dickson J}}<Br>
+''R v Johnson'', [1977] 2 SCR 646, [http://canlii.ca/t/1z6b2 1977 CanLII 229] (SCC){{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 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}}, at p. 191<br>
@@ Line 68: / Line 68: @@
 * [[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>
-R v Kelly, [http://canlii.ca/t/6h32 1998 CanLII 7145] (ON CA), (1998) 128 CCC (3d) 206{{perONCA|Austin JA}}<br>
+''R v Kelly'', [http://canlii.ca/t/6h32 1998 CanLII 7145] (ON CA), (1998) 128 CCC (3d) 206{{perONCA|Austin JA}}<br>
 </ref>
 * Consent to Re-Elect<ref>
@@ Line 74: / Line 74: @@
 </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|Martin JA}}<br>
+''R v Arviv'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1p6zs 1985 CanLII 161] (ON CA), (1985), 19 CCC (3d) 295{{perONCA|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 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>
+''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>
-R v Thomas, [http://canlii.ca/t/h3w84 2017 BCSC 841] (CanLII){{perBCSC|Baird J}} <br>
+''R v Thomas'', [http://canlii.ca/t/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>
-R v Cook, [1997] 1 SCR 1113, [http://canlii.ca/t/1fr1f 1997 CanLII 392] (SCC){{perSCC|L’Heureux-Dubé J}}, at para 21<br>
+''R v Cook'', [1997] 1 SCR 1113, [http://canlii.ca/t/1fr1f 1997 CanLII 392] (SCC){{perSCC|L’Heureux-Dubé J}}, at para 21<br>
 </ref>
 * Stay of proceedings<ref>
-R v Light, [http://canlii.ca/t/1dbl7 1993 CanLII 1023] (BC CA), (1993) 78 CCC (3d) 221{{perBCCA|Wood J}}<br>
+''R v Light'', [http://canlii.ca/t/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>
+''R v Pasini'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1phnx 1991 CanLII 3916] (QC CA), (1991), 63 CCC (3d) 436{{perQCCA|Kaufman J}}<br>
-R v Scott, [1990] 3 SCR 979, [http://canlii.ca/t/1fsp3 1990 CanLII 27] (SCC){{Plurality}}<br>
+''R v Scott'', [1990] 3 SCR 979, [http://canlii.ca/t/1fsp3 1990 CanLII 27] (SCC){{Plurality}}<br>
-R v Cole, [http://canlii.ca/t/4q2r 1998 CanLII 2425] (NS SC), (1998) 126 CCC (3d) 159{{perNSSC|Hood J}}<br>
+''R v Cole'', [http://canlii.ca/t/4q2r 1998 CanLII 2425] (NS SC), (1998) 126 CCC (3d) 159{{perNSSC|Hood J}}<br>
 </ref>
@@ Line 111: / Line 111: @@
 '''Capacity of the Accused'''<br>
 The accused's loss of memory due to amnesia should not provide the basis for a stay of proceedings for abuse of process.<ref>
-R v Morrissey, [http://canlii.ca/t/1tmcq 2007 ONCA 770] (CanLII){{perONCA|Blair JA}} at para 75
+''R v Morrissey'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1tmcq 2007 ONCA 770] (CanLII){{perONCA|Blair JA}} at para 75
 </ref>
 '''Serious Health Concerns'''<br>
 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>
-R v Hong, [http://canlii.ca/t/gmfnq 2015 ONSC 4840] (CanLII){{perONSC|Boswell J}} at para 24  refers to it as a Michalowsky application<Br>
+''R v Hong'', [http://canlii.ca/t/gmfnq 2015 ONSC 4840] (CanLII){{perONSC|Boswell J}} at para 24  refers to it as a Michalowsky application<Br>
-R v Hong, [http://canlii.ca/t/gmcz9 2015 ONSC 5114] (CanLII){{perONSC|Boswell J}} <br>
+''R v Hong'', [http://canlii.ca/t/gmcz9 2015 ONSC 5114] (CanLII){{perONSC|Boswell J}} <br>
-R v Magomadova, [http://canlii.ca/t/gg1cm 2015 ABCA 26] (CanLII){{perABCA|Bielby  JA}}<br>
+''R v Magomadova'', [http://canlii.ca/t/gg1cm 2015 ABCA 26] (CanLII){{perABCA|Bielby  JA}}<br>
 ''R v TGP'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1wnv6 1996 CanLII 8405] (BC CA){{perBCCA|McEachern JA}}<br>
 R v J.-G.R., [http://canlii.ca/t/1nnrl 2006 CanLII 21072] (ON SC){{perONSC|Wein J}}<br>
-R v Michalowsky, [1991] O.J. No. 3611 {{NOCANLII}}<Br>
+''R v Michalowsky'', [1991] O.J. No. 3611 {{NOCANLII}}<Br>
 </ref>
@@ Line 128: / Line 128: @@
 ==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 Goodwin'', (1981),  21 C.R. (3d) 263 (N.S.S.C.){{NOCANLII}}<br>
-R v Betesh, [1975] O.J. No. 36 (Ont. Ct. J.), [http://canlii.ca/t/htwmd 1975 CanLII 1451] (ON CJ){{perONCJ|Graburn J}}<br>
+''R v Betesh'', [1975] O.J. 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>
+''R v Smith'', [1974] BCJ No. 776 (SC), [http://canlii.ca/t/gd08g 1974 CanLII 1653] (BC SC){{perBCSC|Berge J}}<br>
 </ref>
@@ Line 138: / Line 138: @@
 Agreements between counsel, whether on plea or otherwise, ensure an efficient and effective administration of justice. <ref>
-R v Dewald, [http://canlii.ca/t/1fbs6 2001 CanLII 4721] (ON CA), (2001) 156 CCC (3d) 405{{perONCA| Laskin JA}} (2:1)
+''R v Dewald'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1fbs6 2001 CanLII 4721] (ON CA), (2001) 156 CCC (3d) 405{{perONCA| Laskin JA}} (2:1)
 </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. R v Wood, [http://canlii.ca/t/1z8z6 2007 NSPC 39] (CanLII){{perNSPC|Tufts J}}
+e.g. ''R v Wood'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1z8z6 2007 NSPC 39] (CanLII){{perNSPC|Tufts J}}
 </ref>
@@ Line 156: / Line 156: @@
 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>
-R v Rudolph, [http://canlii.ca/t/hpgwv 2017 NSSC 333] (CanLII){{perNSSC|Boudreau J}}
+''R v Rudolph'', [http://canlii.ca/t/hpgwv 2017 NSSC 333] (CanLII){{perNSSC|Boudreau J}}
 </ref> There mere possession of these documents creates a rebuttable presumption of prejudice.<Ref>
 Bruce Power Inc.{{ibid}}</ref>
@@ Line 162: / Line 162: @@
 '''Re-Laying Charges'''<br>
 A re-laying of an information after withdrawing charges at trial or on preliminary inquiry can be found to be abusive.<ref>
-R v Sabourin, [http://canlii.ca/t/1qxjv 2007 MBQB 53] (CanLII){{perMBQB|Suche J}} - Judge comments that there should have been a direct indictment instead<Br>
+''R v Sabourin'', [http://canlii.ca/t/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 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>
+''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 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>
+''R v Smith'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1d9sp 1992 CanLII 12818] (BC CA), 1992 CarswellBC 407 (C.A.){{perBCCA| Hollinrake  JA}}<br>
-R v Scott, [1990] 3 SCR 979, [http://canlii.ca/t/1fsp3 1990 CanLII 27] (SCC){{perSCC|Cory J}}<br>
+''R v Scott'', [1990] 3 SCR 979, [http://canlii.ca/t/1fsp3 1990 CanLII 27] (SCC){{perSCC|Cory J}}<br>
 R v Panarctic Oils Ltd., [http://canlii.ca/t/gb1zc 1982 CanLII 2990] (NWT SC), 1982 CarswellNWT 37 (S.C.), ''per'' 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>
+''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>
 Ball{{ibid}} at para 19<br>
@@ Line 180: / Line 180: @@
 '''Interview of Witnesses'''<br>
 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>
-R v Regan, [2002] 1 SCR 297, [http://canlii.ca/t/51v8 2002 SCC 12] (CanLII){{perSCC|LeBel J}} at para 91<br>
+''R v Regan'', [2002] 1 SCR 297, [http://canlii.ca/t/51v8 2002 SCC 12] (CanLII){{perSCC|LeBel J}} at para 91<br>
 </ref>