David H. Doherty

The appellant sought a stay of proceedings on the basis of alleged unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter, raising foundational questions about which criminal courts may grant remedies under s. 24(1).

The Supreme Court held, by majority, that a preliminary inquiry judge is not a court of competent jurisdiction to grant Charter remedies because that tribunal's authority is confined by the Criminal Code and does not include the remedial powers sought.

The Court further held that Charter remedies in criminal matters must generally fit within the existing procedural structure of the criminal process, with superior courts retaining jurisdiction in appropriate circumstances and appeals remaining governed by statutory routes.

The appeal was dismissed, although strong dissents would have found a s. 11(b) breach and stayed the proceedings.

The appellant was committed for trial on two counts following a preliminary inquiry.

The Crown requested committal on two additional offences disclosed by the evidence, which the judge declined.

The Crown then preferred an indictment containing all four counts under s. 507(2) of the Criminal Code.

The appellant applied to quash the two additional counts.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that an agent of the Attorney General has the power under s. 507(2) to prefer an indictment including counts other than those charged but revealed by the evidence at a preliminary inquiry, provided the accused was committed for trial on at least one of the charges inquired into.

The accused was charged with second degree murder but committed for trial on first degree murder following a preliminary inquiry.

The Crown filed an indictment for first degree murder.

The accused challenged the committal by way of habeas corpus with certiorari in aid.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the mere filing of an indictment does not bar an accused from challenging a committal; an indictment is only 'preferred' when lodged with a trial court ready to proceed.

Furthermore, a preliminary inquiry judge only has jurisdiction to commit an accused for the specific charge laid in the information or an included offence, not for any other offence disclosed by the evidence.

The Crown's appeal was dismissed.