Denis Pilon

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings, arguing that the Crown's decision to proceed by direct indictment, bypassing a preliminary inquiry, constituted an abuse of process.

The applicant, a French speaker, contended that this decision was necessitated by the provincial court's inability to schedule a French preliminary inquiry within a reasonable timeframe, thereby violating his linguistic rights under the Criminal Code.

The court found that while there is no absolute right to a preliminary inquiry, the applicant was deprived of its ancillary benefits due to his choice to be tried in French, which constituted a systemic violation of his right to equal access to justice in his language.

The court concluded that this systemic issue amounted to an abuse of process, warranting a stay of proceedings.

The applicants, who were self-represented accused in a complex multi-party jury trial for bid-rigging, brought an application under s. 650(2)(b) of the Criminal Code to be absent from portions of the trial that did not directly relate to the charges against them.

They argued that attending the entire 15-week trial would cause significant financial and personal hardship.

The Crown opposed their absence unless strict conditions were met.

The court found that while the applicants established substantial cause for their absence, their self-represented status posed a risk to trial fairness and efficiency.

The court granted the application on the strict condition that the applicants retain counsel to be present in court during their absence and sign a fully informed waiver.

Multiple accused charged with bid-rigging and conspiracy to bid-rig under the Competition Act and Criminal Code brought applications under ss. 11(b) and 24(1) of the Charter seeking a stay of proceedings for unreasonable delay.

The prosecution involved a large multi‑accused investigation into coordinated bids for federal government IT contracts and involved extensive disclosure and lengthy preliminary inquiry proceedings.

The court analyzed delay using the framework from R. v. Morin and classified various periods as inherent delay, waiver by the accused, or limited systemic delay.

Most of the post‑charge delay was attributable to the complexity of the case and to the accused’s consent to postponement pending certiorari and appellate proceedings.

The applicants failed to demonstrate actual prejudice or unreasonable systemic delay.

Multiple applicants charged with bid‑rigging under s. 47(2) of the Competition Act and conspiracy under s. 465(1)(c) of the Criminal Code sought certiorari to quash their committal for trial following a preliminary inquiry.

They argued that the government Requests for Proposals used to procure information technology services merely created standing offers or pre‑qualification lists and therefore could not constitute “calls for bids or tenders” within the meaning of the Competition Act.

The court reviewed the Contract A/Contract B tendering framework and relevant procurement jurisprudence, emphasizing that the existence of a bidding contract depends on the parties’ intention to create binding rights and obligations.

It held that there was some evidence from which a trier of fact could conclude that the RFP process created contractual relations sufficient to constitute bids or tenders, even though the government retained discretion not to award work.

The application to quash the committal was therefore dismissed.