Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Criminal law - Right to life, liberty and security of the person - Appeals - Abuse of process - Prosecutorial misconduct - Stay of proceedings - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law by overturning the trial judge’s finding that the violation of the Applicant’s Charter rights justified a stay of all charges - Whether the Court of Appeal erred by finding that the trial judge made a palpable and overriding error - Whether the Court of Appeal erred by failing to consider or apply s. 131 of the Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33.

The Applicant was supervisor of the water pollution control plant for the City of Brockville. Pursuant to an investigation, the Applicant was terminated. The City pleaded guilty to two counts under the Ontario Water Resources Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.40 and was fined $50,000. The Applicant was charged with seven counts under the Act and this was later amended by adding 26 further counts. In October 2002, the defence applied to the Superior Court of Justice for a writ of prohibition with certiorari in aid, on the ground that the Crown had breached its disclosure obligations. The application was granted and the proceedings against the Applicant stayed. The court concluded that the Crown had failed to discharge its disclosure obligations thereby compromising the Applicant’s right to a fair trial. In December 2004, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the stay of proceedings. The case was remitted back to trial.

A second trial was set for February 2006. In October 2005 the trial judge heard a defence application for production of 22 documents which the City claimed were privileged. The trial judge reviewed the documents and all but 10 were eventually produced to the Applicant. At the outset of trial in February 2006, the defence applied for a stay of the additional charges, arguing that they were laid outside the two-year limitation period prescribed by the Act. Prior to releasing his ruling on the stay application, the trial judge held an in chambers meeting with counsel with the presence of a court reporter. The trial judge expressed concerns about the additional charges. The trial judge indicated that he would consider an application for a stay of proceedings on the basis of abuse of process. Based on the comments of the trial judge, the Crown requested that the trial judge recuse himself because of an appearance of judicial bias. The trial judge refused. The defence withdrew its application to stay the additional charges and on the basis of alleged prosecutorial misconduct, instead applied for an order quashing or staying the entire proceedings as an abuse of process and requested costs against the Crown.