Judicial Stay of Proceedings: Difference between revisions
m Text replacement - "CanLII ([0-9]+) \(CanLII" to "CanLII $1 (SCC" |
m Text replacement - "\)\|, \[([0-9]{4})\] ([0-9]+) SCR" to ")|[$1] $2 SCR" |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
{{Seealso|Stay of Proceedings|Stay of Proceedings by Crown}} | {{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> | 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)| | {{CanLIIRP|Jewitt|1ftxr|1985 CanLII 47 (SCC)|[1985] 2 SCR 128}}{{perSCC|Dickson CJ}} (7:0)<br> | ||
{{CanLIIRP|Kalanj|1ft46|1989 CanLII 63 (SCC)| | {{CanLIIRP|Kalanj|1ft46|1989 CanLII 63 (SCC)|[1989] 1 SCR 1594}}{{perSCC|McIntyre J}} (3:2)<br> | ||
{{CanLIIRP|Power|1frvh|1994 CanLII 126 (SCC)| | {{CanLIIRP|Power|1frvh|1994 CanLII 126 (SCC)|[1994] 1 SCR 601}}{{perSCC|L'Heureux‑Dubé J}} (4:3)<br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
The principle of abuse of process arises from the common law.<ref> | The principle of abuse of process arises from the common law.<ref> | ||
{{CanLIIRP|O'Connor|1frdh|1995 CanLII 51 (SCC)| | {{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It is now superseded by the Charter.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> | It is now superseded by the Charter.<ref> | ||
e.g. {{CanLIIR|Regan|51v8|2002 SCC 12 (CanLII)}}{{perSCC|LeBel J}} (5:4)</ref> | e.g. {{CanLIIR|Regan|51v8|2002 SCC 12 (CanLII)}}{{perSCC|LeBel J}} (5:4)</ref> | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
{{supra1|O'Connor}}<br> | {{supra1|O'Connor}}<br> | ||
see {{CanLIIR|Carosella|1fr3p|1997 CanLII 402 (SCC)}}{{perSCC|Sopinka J}} <br> | see {{CanLIIR|Carosella|1fr3p|1997 CanLII 402 (SCC)}}{{perSCC|Sopinka J}} <br> | ||
{{CanLIIRP|La|1fr18|1997 CanLII 309 (SCC)| | {{CanLIIRP|La|1fr18|1997 CanLII 309 (SCC)|[1997] 2 SCR 680}}{{perSCC|Sopinka J}}<br> | ||
{{supra1|Regan}}<br> | {{supra1|Regan}}<br> | ||
{{CanLIIRPC|Taillefer; R v Duguay|1g992|2003 SCC 70 (CanLII)| | {{CanLIIRPC|Taillefer; R v Duguay|1g992|2003 SCC 70 (CanLII)|[2003] 3 SCR 307}}{{perSCC|LeBel J}}<br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
A stay of proceedings is considered the “ultimate remedy” that is absolutely final, preventing the court from ever adjudicating the matter.<ref> | 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)| | {{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> | Consequently, there is a high threshold on a stay of proceedings. It is only permissible in the “clearest of cases”.<ref> | ||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
A clearest of case is one in which the integrity of the justice system is implicated.<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)|, (1995), 165 AR 122, 97 CCC (3d) 126 (CA)}}{{perABCA|Kerans JA}} (3:0)<br> | {{CanLIIRP|Antinello|2dc13|1995 ABCA 117 (CanLII)|, (1995), 165 AR 122, 97 CCC (3d) 126 (CA)}}{{perABCA|Kerans JA}} (3:0)<br> | ||
{{CanLIIRP|Curragh|1fr2v|1997 CanLII 381 (SCC)| | {{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|Spence|fl8t9|2011 ONSC 2406 (CanLII)|, 85 CR (6th) 72}}{{perONSC|Howden J}}<br> | ||
{{CanLIIRP|Bjelland|24wcw|2009 SCC 38 (CanLII)| | {{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|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|Robinson|5s1f|1999 ABCA 367 (CanLII)|, 250 AR 201}}{{perABCA|McFadyen JA}}<br> | ||
{{CanLIIRP|Latimer|1fr3w|1997 CanLII 405 (SCC)| | {{CanLIIRP|Latimer|1fr3w|1997 CanLII 405 (SCC)|[1997] 1 SCR 217, 112 CCC (3d) 193}}{{perSCC|Lamer CJ}}<br> | ||
{{CanLIIR|Gangl|fp6bp|2011 ABCA 357 (CanLII)}}{{TheCourtABCA}}<br> | {{CanLIIR|Gangl|fp6bp|2011 ABCA 357 (CanLII)}}{{TheCourtABCA}}<br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
| Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
; Stay is Mostly a Prospective Remedy | ; 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> | 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)| | {{CanLIIRPC|Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Tobiass|1fr01|1997 CanLII 322 (SCC)|[1997] 3 SCR 391}}{{TheCourtSCC}} | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
Revision as of 19:13, 22 March 2021
- < Procedure and Practice
- < Pre-Trial and Trial Matters
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 stay of proceedings is considered the “ultimate remedy” that is absolutely final, preventing the court from ever adjudicating the matter.[5]
Consequently, there is a high threshold on a stay of proceedings. It is only permissible in the “clearest of cases”.[6]
A clearest of case is one in which the integrity of the justice system is implicated.[7]
If the Crown enters a stay of proceedings on their own is part of the Crown's royal prerogative which is not reviewable by the court.
A stay should not be used "to discipline the police or to attempt to redress a past wrong".[8]
A judge does not have the power to stay proceedings on an electable charge where the defence has yet to enter his election.[9]
Breaches of s. 11(b) are treated differently from other Charter breaches.[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 v Jewitt, 1985 CanLII 47 (SCC), [1985] 2 SCR 128, per Dickson CJ (7:0)
R v Kalanj, 1989 CanLII 63 (SCC), [1989] 1 SCR 1594, per McIntyre J (3:2)
R v Power, 1994 CanLII 126 (SCC), [1994] 1 SCR 601, per L'Heureux‑Dubé J (4:3)
- ↑ R v O'Connor, 1995 CanLII 51 (SCC), [1995] 4 SCR 411, per L'Heureux‑Dubé J
- ↑ e.g. R v Regan, 2002 SCC 12 (CanLII), per LeBel J (5:4)
- ↑
O'Connor, supra
see R v Carosella, 1997 CanLII 402 (SCC), per Sopinka J
R v La, 1997 CanLII 309 (SCC), [1997] 2 SCR 680, per Sopinka J
Regan, supra
Taillefer; R v Duguay, 2003 SCC 70 (CanLII), [2003] 3 SCR 307, per LeBel J
- ↑ Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration) v Tobiass, 1997 CanLII 322 (SCC), [1997] 3 SCR 391, 118 CCC (3d) 443, per curiam, at para 86
- ↑
Regan, supra, at para 53
- ↑
R v Antinello, 1995 ABCA 117 (CanLII), , (1995), 165 AR 122, 97 CCC (3d) 126 (CA), per Kerans JA (3:0)
R v Curragh, 1997 CanLII 381 (SCC), [1997] 1 SCR 537, 113 CCC (3d) 481, per La Forest and Cory J (7:2)
R v Spence, 2011 ONSC 2406 (CanLII), , 85 CR (6th) 72, per Howden J
R v Bjelland, 2009 SCC 38 (CanLII), [2009] 2 SCR 651, per Rothstein J (4:3)
R v RPS, 2010 ABQB 418 (CanLII), , 503 AR 233, per Thomas J
R v Robinson, 1999 ABCA 367 (CanLII), , 250 AR 201, per McFadyen JA
R v Latimer, 1997 CanLII 405 (SCC), [1997] 1 SCR 217, 112 CCC (3d) 193, per Lamer CJ
R v Gangl, 2011 ABCA 357 (CanLII), per curiam
- ↑
R v Samuels, 2008 ONCJ 85 (CanLII), per Nakatsuru J, at paras 62, 83
- ↑ R v Waugh, 2009 NBCA 23 (CanLII), per Drapeau CJ
- ↑ R v Thomson, 2009 ONCA 771 (CanLII), per curiam (3:0)
- ↑ Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Tobiass, 1997 CanLII 322 (SCC), [1997] 3 SCR 391, per curiam
- ↑
R v Bellusci, 2012 SCC 44 (CanLII), per Fish J (7:0), at 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