Case information

Charter of Rights — Criminal law — Stay of proceedings — Abuse of process — Juries — Appeal — Whether Quebec Court of Appeal erred in law in holding that investigation concerning jurors, during trial in progress, did not meet criteria from R. v. Babos, 2014 SCC 16 — Whether Quebec Court of Appeal erred in law in deciding to rule on question of abuse of process relating to investigation concerning jurors, during trial in progress, on sole basis of evidence presented on motion for authorization to present new evidence — Whether Quebec Court of Appeal erred in law in holding that production of five (5) immunity agreements did not constitute oath helping — Whether Quebec Court of Appeal erred in law in finding that hearsay evidence from co-conspirators who were not called to testify, but who were nonetheless available, was admissible — Whether Quebec Court of Appeal erred in law in holding that trial judge had not affected fairness of trial by prohibiting defence counsel from presenting argument to jury concerning impact of prosecution’s decision not to call several important and available witnesses — Whether Quebec Court of Appeal erred in law in holding that trial judge had quite rightly instructed jury that it did not have to consider accused’s testimony at last step of approach set out in R. v. Carter, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 938.

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.

(Publication ban in case) (Sealing order) (Certain information not available to the public)

In June 2018, following a second jury trial, the applicant, Mr. Accurso, was convicted of fraud, corruption and conspiracy. The offences arose from his alleged participation in a system of fraud and corruption in Ville de Laval between 1996 and 2010.

In the Quebec Court of Appeal, the applicant argued, among other things, that the police investigation into the events surrounding the discharge of the first jury had provided the prosecution with information that enabled it to refocus its trial strategy in an unfair manner and that the trial judge had erred in dismissing his motion for a stay of proceedings based on that unlawful conduct. In a unanimous judgment, the Court of Appeal granted the applicant’s motion to present new evidence and granted in part the respondent’s motion to present new evidence, but it dismissed the applicant’s appeal from the guilty verdicts. It found that the applicant had not discharged his burden of proving conduct that justified a stay of proceedings, and it also rejected the applicant’s grounds of appeal concerning errors allegedly made by the trial judge.