Judicial Stay of Proceedings: Difference between revisions

From Criminal Law Notebook
← Older editNewer edit →
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
No edit summary
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>
''R v Jewitt'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1ftxr 1985 CanLII 47] (SCC), [1985] 2 SCR 128{{perSCC|Dickson CJ}} (7:0)<br>  
{{CanLIIRP|Jewitt|1ftxr|1985 CanLII 47 (SCC)|, [1985] 2 SCR 128}}{{perSCC|Dickson CJ}} (7:0)<br>  
''R v Kalanj'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1ft46 1989 CanLII 63] (SCC), [1989] 1 SCR 1594{{perSCC|McIntyre J}} (3:2)<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Kalanj|1ft46|1989 CanLII 63 (SCC)|, [1989] 1 SCR 1594}}{{perSCC|McIntyre J}} (3:2)<br>
''R v Power'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1frvh 1994 CanLII 126] (SCC), [1994] 1 SCR 601{{perSCC|L'Heureux‑Dubé J}} (4:3)<br>
{{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>
''R v O'Connor'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1frdh 1995 CanLII 51] (SCC), [1995] 4 SCR 411{{perSCC|L'Heureux‑Dubé J}}</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It is now superseded by the Charter.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>
It is now superseded by the Charter.<ref>
e.g. ''R v Regan'', [http://canlii.ca/t/51v8 2002 SCC 12] (CanLII), [2002] 1 SCR 297{{perSCC|LeBel J}} (5:4)</ref>
e.g. ''R v Regan'', [http://canlii.ca/t/51v8 2002 SCC 12] (CanLII), [2002] 1 SCR 297{{perSCC|LeBel J}} (5:4)</ref>
Line 17: Line 17:
{{supra1|O'Connor}}<br>
{{supra1|O'Connor}}<br>
see ''R v Carosella'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1fr3p 1997 CanLII 402] (SCC), [1997] 1 SCR 80{{perSCC|Sopinka J}} <br>
see ''R v Carosella'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1fr3p 1997 CanLII 402] (SCC), [1997] 1 SCR 80{{perSCC|Sopinka J}} <br>
''R v La'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1fr18 1997 CanLII 309] (SCC), [1997] 2 SCR 680{{perSCC|Sopinka J}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|La|1fr18|1997 CanLII 309 (SCC)|, [1997] 2 SCR 680}}{{perSCC|Sopinka J}}<br>
{{supra1|Regan}}<br>
{{supra1|Regan}}<br>
''R v Taillefer; R v Duguay'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1g992 2003 SCC 70] (CanLII), [2003] 3 SCR 307{{perSCC|LeBel J}}<br>
''R v Taillefer; R v Duguay'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1g992 2003 SCC 70] (CanLII), [2003] 3 SCR 307{{perSCC|LeBel J}}<br>
Line 23: Line 23:


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>
''Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration) v Tobiass'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1fr01 1997 CanLII 322] (SCC), [1997] 3 SCR 391, 118 CCC (3d) 443{{TheCourtSCC}}{{atL|1fr01|86}}</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>
Consequently, there is a high threshold on a stay of proceedings. It is only permissible in the “clearest of cases”.<ref>
Line 32: Line 32:
''R v Antinello'', [http://canlii.ca/t/2dc13 1995 ABCA 117] (CanLII), (1995), 165 AR 122, 97 CCC (3d) 126 (CA){{perABCA|Kerans JA}} (3:0)<br>
''R v Antinello'', [http://canlii.ca/t/2dc13 1995 ABCA 117] (CanLII), (1995), 165 AR 122, 97 CCC (3d) 126 (CA){{perABCA|Kerans JA}} (3:0)<br>
''R v Curragh'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1fr2v 1997 CanLII 381] (SCC), [1997] 1 SCR 537, 113 CCC (3d) 481{{perSCC|La Forest and Cory J}} (7:2)<br>
''R v Curragh'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1fr2v 1997 CanLII 381] (SCC), [1997] 1 SCR 537, 113 CCC (3d) 481{{perSCC|La Forest and Cory J}} (7:2)<br>
''R v Spence'', [http://canlii.ca/t/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>  
''R v Bjelland'', [http://canlii.ca/t/24wcw 2009 SCC 38] (CanLII), [2009] 2 SCR 651{{perSCC|Rothstein J}} (4:3)<br>  
{{CanLIIRP|Bjelland|24wcw|2009 SCC 38 (CanLII)|, [2009] 2 SCR 651}}{{perSCC|Rothstein J}} (4:3)<br>  
''R v RPS'', [http://canlii.ca/t/2f5tn 2010 ABQB 418] (CanLII), 503 AR 233{{perABQB|Thomas J}}<br>
''R v RPS'', [http://canlii.ca/t/2f5tn 2010 ABQB 418] (CanLII), 503 AR 233{{perABQB|Thomas J}}<br>
''R v Robinson'', [http://canlii.ca/t/5s1f 1999 ABCA 367] (CanLII), 250 AR 201{{perABCA|McFadyen JA}}<br>  
''R v Robinson'', [http://canlii.ca/t/5s1f 1999 ABCA 367] (CanLII), 250 AR 201{{perABCA|McFadyen JA}}<br>  
Line 43: Line 43:


A stay should not be used "to discipline the police or to attempt to redress a past wrong".<ref>
A stay should not be used "to discipline the police or to attempt to redress a past wrong".<ref>
''R v Samuels'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1vx48 2008 ONCJ 85] (CanLII){{perONCJ|Nakatsuru J}}{{atsL|1vx48|62|}}, {{atsL-np|1vx48|83|}}<br>
{{CanLIIR|Samuels|1vx48|2008 ONCJ 85 (CanLII)}}{{perONCJ|Nakatsuru J}}{{atsL|1vx48|62|}}, {{atsL-np|1vx48|83|}}<br>
</ref>
</ref>


A judge does not have the power to stay proceedings on an electable charge where the defence has yet to enter his election.<ref>
A judge does not have the power to stay proceedings on an electable charge where the defence has yet to enter his election.<ref>
''R v Waugh'', [http://canlii.ca/t/23jxr 2009 NBCA 23] (CanLII){{perNBCA|Drapeau CJ}}
{{CanLIIR|Waugh|23jxr|2009 NBCA 23 (CanLII)}}{{perNBCA|Drapeau CJ}}
</ref>
</ref>


Breaches of s. 11(b) are treated differently from other Charter breaches.<ref>
Breaches of s. 11(b) are treated differently from other Charter breaches.<ref>
''R v Thomson'', [http://canlii.ca/t/26g5w 2009 ONCA 771] (CanLII){{TheCourtONCA}} (3:0)
{{CanLIIR|Thomson|26g5w|2009 ONCA 771 (CanLII)}}{{TheCourtONCA}} (3:0)
</ref>
</ref>


; 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>
''Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Tobiass'', [1997] 3 SCR 391, [http://canlii.ca/t/1fr01 1997 CanLII 322] (SCC){{TheCourtSCC}}
{{CanLIIRPC|Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Tobiass|1fr01|1997 CanLII 322 (SCC)|, [1997] 3 SCR 391}}{{TheCourtSCC}}
</ref>
</ref>


; Standard of Appellate Review
; Standard of Appellate Review
A decision to stay a proceeding under s. 24(1) of the Charter is accorded deference on review.<ref>
A decision to stay a proceeding under s. 24(1) of the Charter is accorded deference on review.<ref>
''R v Bellusci'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fs7kv 2012 SCC 44] (CanLII){{perSCC|Fish J}} (7:0){{atL|fs7kv|17}}<br>
{{CanLIIR|Bellusci|fs7kv|2012 SCC 44 (CanLII)}}{{perSCC|Fish J}} (7:0){{atL|fs7kv|17}}<br>
</ref>
</ref>


Revision as of 11:26, 30 November 2020

General Principles

See also: Stay of Proceedings and 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.[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. As the Supreme Court of Canada stated:

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]

  1. ↑ 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)
  2. ↑ R v O'Connor, 1995 CanLII 51 (SCC), , [1995] 4 SCR 411, per L'Heureux‑Dubé J
  3. ↑ e.g. R v Regan, 2002 SCC 12 (CanLII), [2002] 1 SCR 297, per LeBel J (5:4)
  4. ↑ O'Connor, supra
    see R v Carosella, 1997 CanLII 402 (SCC), [1997] 1 SCR 80, per Sopinka J
    R v La, 1997 CanLII 309 (SCC), , [1997] 2 SCR 680, per Sopinka J
    Regan, supra
    R v Taillefer; R v Duguay, 2003 SCC 70 (CanLII), [2003] 3 SCR 307, per LeBel J
  5. ↑ Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration) v Tobiass, 1997 CanLII 322 (SCC), , [1997] 3 SCR 391, 118 CCC (3d) 443, per curiam, at para 86
  6. ↑ Regan, supra, at para 53
  7. ↑ 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
  8. ↑ R v Samuels, 2008 ONCJ 85 (CanLII), per Nakatsuru J, at paras 62, 83
  9. ↑ R v Waugh, 2009 NBCA 23 (CanLII), per Drapeau CJ
  10. ↑ R v Thomson, 2009 ONCA 771 (CanLII), per curiam (3:0)
  11. ↑ Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Tobiass, 1997 CanLII 322 (SCC), , [1997] 3 SCR 391, per curiam
  12. ↑ R v Bellusci, 2012 SCC 44 (CanLII), per Fish J (7:0), at para 17

Grounds for Stays of Proceeding

Case Digests

Retrieved from "https://criminalnotebook.ca/index.php?title=Judicial_Stay_of_Proceedings&oldid=57310"