Case information

Charter of Rights — Right to be tried within a reasonable time — Prerogative writs — Certiorari — Availability of remedy — What is the scope of certiorari — How do courts resolve the conflict and competing public policy considerations between a remedy under the Charter and a remedy by way of certiorari — Does the “diligence” analysis under s. 11(b) of the Charter subsume the relevance analysis under s. 7 of the Charter — Is the “obviously relevant” analysis established by this Court in R. v. Gubbins optional? — R. v. Gubbins, 2018 SCC 44, [2018] 3 S.C.R. 35

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 applicants were charged under s. 10(1)(a) of the Endangered Species Act, 2007, S.O. 2007, c.6 as amended. As part of the proceedings, they brought an application seeking disclosure of records and an application alleging violations of ss. 7, 8, 11(b) and 11(d) of the Charter. The application for disclosure related to a request made to the Crown in July 2019 and refused on the basis that the records were not relevant and lay in the hands of a third party. The disclosure application was made nearly three years later. The applicants significantly narrowed the scope of the request at the hearing. The trial judge directed the Crown to make inquiries with the third party about whether they would provide the records without the need for a third-party application. The Crown did so and provided the records to the applicants less than two months later, without conceding the relevance. The trial judge dismissed the s. 8 and 11(b) application, and ruled that the s. 7 and 11(d) application would be decided after trial evidence was presented and considered.

The applicants filed an application with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for review of the trial judge’s s. 11(b) decision, seeking relief by way of certiorari pursuant to s. 140 of the Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.33 (the “POA”) and/or relief under s. 24(1) of the Charter. The application judge dismissed the application under the POA on the basis that the trial judge had not committed any jurisdictional errors and dismissed the s. 24(1) Charter application on the basis that even if the delay was as egregious as suggested by the applicants, their remedy lay in a regular route of appeal. The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the judge’s approach or analysis.