Costs: Difference between revisions
m Text replacement - "A.J. No. " to "AJ No " |
m Text replacement - "Ref>" to "ref>" |
||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
{{supra1|Taylor}} at para 43</ref> | {{supra1|Taylor}} at para 43</ref> | ||
While there is no closed list of circumstances, situations where costs may be ordered against the Crown is where the prosecution has been (1) frivolous, (2) for an oblique motive, or (3) where the Crown has taken up the matter as a test case.< | While there is no closed list of circumstances, situations where costs may be ordered against the Crown is where the prosecution has been (1) frivolous, (2) for an oblique motive, or (3) where the Crown has taken up the matter as a test case.<ref> | ||
R v King [http://canlii.ca/t/22kkw 1986 CanLII 1156] (BC CA), (1986), 26 CCC (3d) 349 (BCCA){{perBCCA|Lambert JA}} at para 13<br> | R v King [http://canlii.ca/t/22kkw 1986 CanLII 1156] (BC CA), (1986), 26 CCC (3d) 349 (BCCA){{perBCCA|Lambert JA}} at para 13<br> | ||
see also ''R v Neustaedter'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1hm6j 2003 BCSC 39] (CanLII){{perBCSC|Stromberg-Stein J}} at para 7<br> | see also ''R v Neustaedter'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1hm6j 2003 BCSC 39] (CanLII){{perBCSC|Stromberg-Stein J}} at para 7<br> | ||
| Line 56: | Line 56: | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
Case management roles created under section 482(3)(c) cannot convey jurisdiction upon the provincial court to order costs outside of the Charter or the Criminal Code.< | Case management roles created under section 482(3)(c) cannot convey jurisdiction upon the provincial court to order costs outside of the Charter or the Criminal Code.<ref> | ||
''R v Campbell'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1z13v 2008 BCSC 805] (CanLII){{perBCSC|Romilly J}} | ''R v Campbell'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1z13v 2008 BCSC 805] (CanLII){{perBCSC|Romilly J}} | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
'''Costs Against the Crown'''<Br> | '''Costs Against the Crown'''<Br> | ||
Costs against the Crown are "rare" but are permitted when they are "integrally connected to the court's control of its trial process, and are intended as a means of disciplining and discouraging behaviour".< | Costs against the Crown are "rare" but are permitted when they are "integrally connected to the court's control of its trial process, and are intended as a means of disciplining and discouraging behaviour".<ref> | ||
''R v Kocet'', [http://canlii.ca/t/grz0l 2016 ONCJ 329] (CanLII){{perONCJ|McKay J}} at para 6<Br> | ''R v Kocet'', [http://canlii.ca/t/grz0l 2016 ONCJ 329] (CanLII){{perONCJ|McKay J}} at para 6<Br> | ||
''R v Singh'', [http://canlii.ca/t/gn8gk 2016 ONCA 108] (CanLII){{perONCA|Pardu JA}}<Br> | ''R v Singh'', [http://canlii.ca/t/gn8gk 2016 ONCA 108] (CanLII){{perONCA|Pardu JA}}<Br> | ||
| Line 68: | Line 68: | ||
'''Costs Against Defence'''<br> | '''Costs Against Defence'''<br> | ||
There has been some suggestion that costs may also be ordered against the defence in certain circumstances.< | There has been some suggestion that costs may also be ordered against the defence in certain circumstances.<ref> | ||
''R v Dumont'', [http://canlii.ca/t/5057 2002 ABPC 44] (CanLII){{perABPC|Lefeber J}} | ''R v Dumont'', [http://canlii.ca/t/5057 2002 ABPC 44] (CanLII){{perABPC|Lefeber J}} | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
Revision as of 23:49, 12 January 2019
- < Procedure and Practice
- < Pre-Trial and Trial Matters
General Principles
Costs against the Crown require Crown misconduct or a serious interference with the authority of the court or administration of justice. [1]
Costs against the Crown are "an exceptional or remarkable event".[2] Costs may be ordered as a remedy to a Charter breach.[3] Not just any Charter breach will result in costs.[4] It should be conduct where the Crown is "reponsible for some misconduct, complicit in it, or other unique circumstances exist."[5]
The reason behind this is that costs would have the effect of deterring the Crown from exercising their duties in the public interest to the fullest extent.[6]
While there is no closed list of circumstances, situations where costs may be ordered against the Crown is where the prosecution has been (1) frivolous, (2) for an oblique motive, or (3) where the Crown has taken up the matter as a test case.[7]
Jurisdiction
The "jurisdiction for awarding costs in criminal matters is extremely narrow and the threshold is very high."[8]
In determining whether there should be costs against the Crown, the Court may apply its "inherent power to protect against abuse of process".[9]
A provincial court has no jurisdiction to order punitive costs against the defence.[10]
A preliminary inquiry judge does not have the jurisdiction to make orders of cost against the crown.[11]
A Youth Justice Court sitting as a trial court has jurisdiction to award costs against the Crown for a Charter breach.[12]
Where the accused has been arraigned and entered a plea before a court of competent jurisdiction, that court becomes the trial court which may be able to hear costs even after a stay of proceedings is entered.[13]
A bail hearing judge under section 515 (1) is not a "court of competent jurisdiction" within the meaning of section 24 (1) of the Charter and so has no jurisdiction to order costs against the Crown.[14]
Case management roles created under section 482(3)(c) cannot convey jurisdiction upon the provincial court to order costs outside of the Charter or the Criminal Code.[15]
Costs Against the Crown
Costs against the Crown are "rare" but are permitted when they are "integrally connected to the court's control of its trial process, and are intended as a means of disciplining and discouraging behaviour".[16]
Costs Against Defence
There has been some suggestion that costs may also be ordered against the defence in certain circumstances.[17]
Appeal
Under s. 676.1, a party ordered to pay costs may appeal the order and amount with leave to the court of appeal.
Disclosure
Costs as a remedy for failure to provide timely disclosure requires that there be a "marked and unacceptable departure from the reasonable standards expected of the prosecution". It is not necessary to establish a "flagrant disregard for the accused's rights" or "egregious conduct".
[18]
Test Case
A "test case" would be one where the Crown persues a valid social purpose by seeking to settle a point of law. This will incur a cost that should not be born by just one individual.[19]
However, where the accused "has a significant practical stake in the prosecution, high public interest in the outcome of the proceedings" then it should not be considered a "test case".[20]
- ↑
R v Magda, 2006 CanLII 36822 (ON CA), per Feldman JA
R v Griffin, 2009 ABQB 696 (CanLII), per Greckol J at para 176
- ↑ R v 974649 Ontario Inc, 2001 SCC 81 (CanLII), [2001] 3 SCR 575, per McLachlin CJ, at para 86
- ↑
R v Singh, 2009 NSSC 306 (CanLII), per Duncan J at para 25 - it must be ordered by a superior court judge
R v Ralph, 2008 NLCA 71 (CanLII), per Mercer JA, at para 12
R v Pang, 1994 ABCA 371 (CanLII), per Harradence JA - ↑
R v SEL, 2013 ABCA 45 (CanLII), per Bielby JA at para 9
- ↑
R v Taylor, 2008 NSCA 5 (CanLII), per Saunders JA at para 43
- ↑
Ralph, supra at para 13
Taylor, supra at para 43 - ↑
R v King 1986 CanLII 1156 (BC CA), (1986), 26 CCC (3d) 349 (BCCA), per Lambert JA at para 13
see also R v Neustaedter, 2003 BCSC 39 (CanLII), per Stromberg-Stein J at para 7
- ↑ R v Leyshon‑Hughes, 2009 ONCA 16 (CanLII), 240 CCC (3d) 181Template:PerSimmons JA at para 55
- ↑ Canada (Attorney General) v Foster 2006 CanLII 38732(ON CA), (2006), 215 CCC (3d) 59 (Ont. C.A.), per Rosenberg JA at para 69
- ↑
R v Gunn, 2003 ABQB 314 (CanLII), per Langston J at para 48
- ↑ R v Howard, 2009 PECA 27 (CanLII), per Jenkins CJ – Application for costs due to delay of disclosure
- ↑
R v Mills, 1986 CanLII 17 (SCC), [1986] 1 SCR 863, per McIntyre J
R v Conway, 2010 SCC 22 (CanLII), [2010] 1 SCR 765, per Abella J
R v 974649 Ontario Inc., 2001 SCC 81 (CanLII), (2001), 159 CCC (3d) 321, per McLachlin CJ
- ↑
R v CW, 2011 ABPC 205 (CanLII), per Lefever J - re Youth Justice Court
R v Pang, 1994 ABCA 371 (CanLII), per Harradence JA - provincial court permitted in some circumstances
- ↑ R v Menard, 2008 BCCA 521 (CanLII), per Finch CJ
- ↑ R v Campbell, 2008 BCSC 805 (CanLII), per Romilly J
- ↑
R v Kocet, 2016 ONCJ 329 (CanLII), per McKay J at para 6
R v Singh, 2016 ONCA 108 (CanLII), per Pardu JA
R v Ferncan Developments, 2016 ONCA 269 (CanLII), per LaForme JA
- ↑ R v Dumont, 2002 ABPC 44 (CanLII), per Lefeber J
- ↑
R v Henkel, 2003 ABCA 23 (CanLII), [2003] AJ No 51 (ABCA), per Ritter JA
R v Branton, 2010 NLTD 207 (CanLII), per Hndrigan J - costs awarded for delayed disclosure
- ↑
Ralph, supra at para 15
R v Trask, 1987 CanLII 24 (SCC), [1987] 2 SCR 304, per McIntyre J, at pp.307-308
- ↑
Ralph at para 18
Summary Conviction Court
Costs
809 (1) The summary conviction court may in its discretion award and order such costs as it considers reasonable and not inconsistent with such of the fees established by section 840 as may be taken or allowed in proceedings before that summary conviction court, to be paid
- (a) to the informant by the defendant, where the summary conviction court convicts or makes an order against the defendant; or
- (b) to the defendant by the informant, where the summary conviction court dismisses an information.
Order set out
(2) An order under subsection (1) shall be set out in the conviction, order or order of dismissal, as the case may be.
Costs are part of fine
(3) Where a fine or sum of money or both are adjudged to be paid by a defendant and a term of imprisonment in default of payment is imposed, the defendant is, in default of payment, liable to serve the term of imprisonment imposed, and for the purposes of this subsection, any costs that are awarded against the defendant shall be deemed to be part of the fine or sum of money adjudged to be paid.
Where no fine imposed
(4) Where no fine or sum of money is adjudged to be paid by a defendant, but costs are awarded against the defendant or informant, the person who is liable to pay them is, in default of payment, liable to imprisonment for one month.
Definition of “costs”
(5) In this section, costs includes the costs and charges, after they have been ascertained, of committing and conveying to prison the person against whom costs have been awarded.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 744.
– CCC
Costs Personally Against Counsel
In exceptional cases costs can be awarded against a lawyer personally. This typically is where there is some form of wilful misconduct or dishonesty.[1]
- ↑
e.g. A.G. Quebec v Cronier (1981), 63 CCC (3d) 437 (Que. C.A.), 1981 CanLII 3179 (QC CA), per L'Heureux-Dube JA at pp. 448-449
Pacific Mobile Corp. V. Hunter Douglas [1979] 1 SCR 842, 1979 CanLII 201 (SCC), per Pigeon J
Case Digests
- R v Brown, 2009 ONCA 633 (CanLII), per Sharpe JA - costs of $2000 for Crown continued delay of bail hearing for several weeks. Habeas Corpus application granted.
- R v Kelln, 2003 SKPC 1 (CanLII), per Snell J - $500 costs against Crow for failure to provide officer notes on a timely manner. Notes were provided 11 months after request.
- R v Yeun, [2001] AJ No 1122, 2001 ABPC 145 (CanLII), per Lamoureux JA - costs against crown awarded for failure to provide disclosure ($2,200).
See Also
- Disclosure - see section on costs as remedy