Preliminary Inquiry: Who Gets One, Who Doesn't


The primary purpose of a preliminary inquiry is to screen out meritless allegations. A preliminary inquiry gives the accused the opportunity to have a judicial determination of whether the Crown can produce sufficient evidence to justify the case going forward to trial. 

On September 19, 2019 new amendments to the Criminal Code came into force. [FN1] These amendments substantially limit the availability of preliminary inquiries.

Prior to the amendments, anyone in Ontario who had elected trial in the Superior Court of Justice (judge and jury, or judge alone) could request and, upon request, was entitled to a preliminary inquiry.  The recent amendments limit that entitlement to offences that provide for a sentence of at least 14 years’ imprisonment.

Those who have Requested a Preliminary Inquiry Before September 19, 2019

The amendments to preliminary inquiries do not apply to an accused who is charged with an indictable electable offence and who has elected trial in the Superior Court of Justice and requested a preliminary inquiry prior to September 19, 2019 but has not yet had that preliminary inquiry.  That person has a right to request and is entitled to have a preliminary inquiry. [FN2]

               R. v. R.S., 2019 ONCA 906, at para. 4.

The elimination of the preliminary inquiry through the amendments affects a substantive right of those who have requested but not yet received a preliminary inquiry prior to September 19, 2019: the entitlement to be discharged at a preliminary inquiry if the Crown cannot meet its evidentiary burden.  Legislation that interferes with acquired substantive rights is presumptively prospective and only rebutted where Parliament has clearly signaled that the legislation should have retrospective effect.  Parliament had not evinced such an intention. 

               R. v. R.S., 2019 ONCA 906, at paras. 49, 59.

Those who have not Requested a Preliminary Inquiry Before September 19, 2019

However, an accused charged with an indictable electable offence but who has not, prior to September 19, 2019, elected trial in the Superior Court of Justice and requested a preliminary inquiry is not thereafter entitled to request a preliminary inquiry or receive a preliminary inquiry unless that person faces a charge punishable by 14 years’ imprisonment or more.

            R. v. R.S., 2019 ONCA 906, at para. 14.

                        Stuart O’Connell, O’Connell Law Group, Toronto.
Tel: 416-628-1942
(All rights reserved to author)

[FN1] Bill C-75, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, 1st Sess., 42nd Parl., 2019, c. 25.

[FN2] This includes those who have made a clear, but informal election and request, as evinced by the transcript of proceedings or endorsements on the information.



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Warrantless Drug Searches (Section 11(7) of the CDSA)

Were there exigent circumstances? Did the exigent circumstances render it impracticable to obtain a warrant? Section 11(7)   of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act states: (7) A peace officer may exercise any of the powers described in subsection (1), (5) or (6) without a warrant if the conditions for obtaining a warrant exist but by reason of exigent circumstances it would be impracticable to obtain one. Subsection (1)   of s. 11 empowers a peace officer to conduct a warranted search of a place for, inter alia , a controlled substance and to seize it. Section 11(7), therefore, empowers a peace officer to conduct a warrantless search for a controlled substance, so long as conditions for obtaining a warrant existed and exigent circumstances made it impracticable for the officer to obtain a warrant. For a warrantless entry into a residence to satisfy section 11(7) , the Crown must show that the entry was compelled by urgency, calling for immediate police action to prese
Read more

Arrested at Home: Feeney Warrants

At common law, where the police had reasonable grounds to arrest a suspect and reasonable grounds to believe a suspect was in a private dwelling-house, they were entitled to enter and arrest the suspect, with or without an arrest warrant, if proper announcement was made. See R. v. Landry , 1986 CanLII 48 (SCC), [1986] 1 S.C.R. 145 , and Eccles v. Bourque et al. , 1974 CanLII 191 (SCC), [1975] 2 S.C.R. 739 ). However, in the 1997 decision of R. v. Feeney , the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the common law violated s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that generally, warrantless arrests within private dwellings were prohibited.  Absent exigent circumstances or cases of hot pursuit, an entry warrant would be required to enter a dwelling house to make an arrest.    R. v. Feeney , 1997 CanLII 342 (SCC), at paras. 44-51.  Parliament responded by enacting sections 529-529.5 of the Criminal Code , which, among other things, creates two distinct authorizatio
Read more

Night time Execution of a Search Warrant

Warrants Authorized under the Criminal Code The Criminal Code requires that if a warrant is to be executed at night (after 9:00 p.m., see Criminal Code , s. 2), the night time execution must be justified under the terms of s. 488 of the Criminal Code .    Section 488 of the Criminal Code is not made applicable to warrants and telewarrants issued under the authority of section 11 of the CDSA, which may be executed “at any time”.  R. v. Shivrattan, 2017 ONCA 23; R. v. Saunders , 2003 NLCA 63, 181 C.C.C. (3d) 268, at paras. 27, 31-32, affirmed on other grounds, 2004 SCC 70, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 505; R. v. Dueck , 2005 BCCA 448, 200 C.C.C. (3d) 378, at paras. 17-21; and R. v. Newell , [2007] O.J. No. 2348, at para. 47 (Ont. S.C.). Warrants Authorized under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act Unlike warrants issued under the Criminal Code , there is no statutory presumption that warrants issued under s. 11 of the CDSA are to be executed before 9:00 p.m. unless night t
Read more