Julius Melnitzer

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, charged with an indictable offence, elected trial by a judge and jury and requested that the judge be a Supreme Court judge.

The magistrate refused to accept the election of the specific forum.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that while an accused may elect the mode of trial under section 484(2) of the Criminal Code, they do not have the right to choose the specific forum or level of court, which remains a choice for the prosecution.

The appellant was convicted of driving while disqualified under s. 238(3) of the Criminal Code after his driver's licence was suspended by provincial administrative action.

He challenged the constitutionality of the provision.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 238(3) was ultra vires the Parliament of Canada, as it attached criminal consequences to provincial licence suspensions that could be imposed for reasons entirely unrelated to driving ability or highway safety, thereby exceeding the federal criminal law power under s. 91(27) of the B.N.A. Act.