The appellant sought certiorari during an ongoing summary conviction trial after the trial judge refused to quash an information on the basis that there were allegedly no reasonable and probable grounds for one of the charges when the information was sworn.
The Court of Appeal held that interlocutory review in criminal proceedings is not routinely available and that certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for a prohibited interlocutory appeal absent compelling interests of justice.
Applying the governing framework, the court found no reason for immediate superior court intervention and held that the trial should have proceeded to completion within the ordinary criminal process.
The appeal was dismissed and the matter remitted to the trial judge.
