12 Days to a Bail Hearing: Court Stays all Charges for Abuse of Process

 There are two well-recognized categories of abuse of process. The first, and more common, category is engaged by prosecutorial conduct affecting the fairness of the trial; the second, the residual category, is engaged by prosecutorial conduct that contravenes fundamental notions of justice and undermines the integrity of the judicial process.

R. v. Nixon, 2011 SCC 34, 2 S.C.R., at para. 36;

 R. v. O’Connor, 1995 CanLII 51.

Abuses of process within the residual category tend to involve Charter violations and conduct that is likely to be perpetuated into the future.

In R v. Simonelli, 2021 ONSC 354 (CanLII), the accuseds brought applications to stay the proceedings under Section 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for abuse of process.  They claimed that the twelve days from their arrests to their special bail hearing [FN1] constituted an abuse of process falling within the "residual" category of that common law doctrine.  Typically bail hearings occur within 24 hours of arrest. [FN2]

Beyond the delay particular to them, the Applicants in Simonelli established that there were ongoing systemic bail delay problems within the jurisdiction (Brampton, Ontario).  The 12 day pre-trial custody period the Applicants endured was a clear violation of 11(e) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms--the right not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause--but did the delay also amount to an abuse of process? Yes.

The Court concluded that the bail delays the Applicants had experienced were part of a serious unaddressed systemic problem with no end in sight, “a blot on the administration of justice” (para. 141).

Stay of Proceedings

A stay of proceedings is a prospective rather than a retroactive remedy. It does not merely redress a past wrong. It aims to prevent the perpetuation of a wrong that, if left alone, will continue to trouble the parties and the community as a whole, in the future.

A stay of proceedings is one of the most drastic remedies a criminal court can order.  It permanently halts the prosecution of an accused. As such it is a remedy of last resort.

If of sufficient gravity, systemic problems impugning the efficiency and ultimately the integrity of the bail process may justify a stay of proceedings.  The proposed remedy of a stay can be imposed only in the clearest of cases where the need to uphold the integrity of the system outweighs the public importance of the prosecution (para. 4).  These were such circumstances. 

As the Court forcefully expressed, “Pervasive, substantial delays in adjudicating on the accused’s liberty after arrest, a vital judicial function, lie very high on the scale of egregiousness. A system that cannot provide an accused with the basic entitlement of a bail hearing with reasonable promptitude is broken on the most fundamental level” (para. 141).

All charges stayed for abuse of process.  

 

Stuart O’Connell (Barrister/Solicitor)

[FN1] See Criminal Code, section 503 (1).

[FN] Special bail hearings is a term used to refer to bail hearings requiring longer than 2 hours to complete.

Location: Toronto, ON, Canada

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

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

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