Case information

Constitutional law — Charter of Rights — Remedy — Stay of proceedings — Abuse of process — Residual category — Whether Court of Appeal erred by not granting stay of proceedings —Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 7, 8, 9, 24(1)

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.

The applicant stood trial on charges relating to drug trafficking and firearms. The charges were originally laid on two different dates. On the latter of these two dates, police entered the applicant’s home to arrest him under the authorization of a Feeney warrant. However, they violated the applicant’s rights by entering his home without first announcing their presence, which was not authorized by the warrant. On the date of this arrest, the police swore the information containing the second set of charges.

The trial judge held that a partial stay of proceedings, applying only to the charges laid on the date of the applicant’s arrest, was adequate to dissociate the justice system from the police misconduct. A judicial stay was entered in relation to the firearms charges only. The trial judge reopened this ruling in light of an error of fact: one of the drug charges was also laid on the date of arrest. However, she determined that the existing partial stay of proceedings remained an adequate remedy.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown’s appeal and remitted the stayed charges for trial. It held that the trial judge erred by ordering a remedy not advanced in argument without first advising the parties, and by failing to properly consider alternative remedies. It conducted a fresh analysis, concluding that a sentence reduction and judicial reprimand were adequate remedies.