Stay of proceedings

The U.K. Pensions Regulator and Pension Protection Fund Trustee appealed an order finding that their service of a Warning Notice breached the stay provisions in the Initial Order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing that the service of the Notice was a nullity.

The Court clarified that the order below does not preclude the appellants from seeking to assert a claim in the CCAA process for pension contribution shortfalls.

Gary McHale laid a private information alleging three individuals committed a crime.

A justice of the peace received the information.

Before the pre-enquete hearing under s. 507.1 of the Criminal Code could begin, a Crown Attorney intervened and withdrew the charges.

McHale successfully applied for mandamus in the Superior Court, which directed the pre-enquete to proceed.

The Crown appealed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Crown's common law authority to withdraw a private information does not crystallize until the justice determines to issue process at the conclusion of the pre-enquete.

The defendant supplied a helicopter engine to the plaintiff under a commercial agreement containing a forum selection clause specifying Arizona as the exclusive jurisdiction.

After the helicopter crashed in Saskatchewan, the plaintiff sued in Ontario.

The motion judge dismissed the defendant's motion to stay the action, applying a forum non conveniens analysis.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the motion judge erred by treating the forum selection clause as merely one factor in a forum non conveniens analysis.

Under the strong cause test, a forum selection clause in a commercial contract must be enforced unless exceptional circumstances are shown.

The appellant appealed an order staying the Ontario proceeding on the basis of forum non conveniens.

The respondent undertook not to raise the expiry of a limitation period if the matter proceeded in Manitoba within 60 days.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the motion judge's determination that Manitoba was the proper forum and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to the respondent.

The appellant company was charged under the Occupational Health and Safety Act following a workplace accident where an employee was injured using a table saw.

The trial judge stayed the charges, finding the appellant's right to a fair trial under s. 11(d) of the Charter was irreparably prejudiced because a potential defence witness (a supervisor) died before charges were laid.

The provincial offences appeal court lifted the stay.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant failed to establish actual prejudice, as there was no evidence the deceased witness would have materially assisted the defence, and actual prejudice cannot be presumed from the mere fact of lost evidence.

The appellant law firm and the respondent client entered into a contingency fee agreement containing an arbitration clause.

A dispute arose over the fee calculation, and the appellant served a notice of arbitration.

The respondent successfully applied to the Superior Court to strike the notice on the basis that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable for public policy reasons under the Solicitors Act.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the application judge did not err in assuming jurisdiction to decide the threshold issue of enforceability.

However, the Court found that the arbitration clause was enforceable, provided the arbitrator conducts the arbitration in accordance with the substantive statutory protections of the Solicitors Act, including assessing whether the fee is fair and reasonable.

The respondents were charged with sexual assault.

The trial judge stayed the charges under s. 11(b) of the Charter due to a 25-month delay from arrest to the scheduled trial date, attributing the delay beyond the Morin guidelines to the Crown's late disclosure.

The Crown appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred by failing to deduct 7.5 months for inherent time requirements and by isolating the delay in the Superior Court.

After deducting the intake period, the 17.5-month delay fell within the Morin guidelines.

The stay was set aside and a new trial ordered.

The appellant sought leave to appeal a summary conviction appeal decision regarding an offence for which a stay of proceedings had been entered, leaving an impaired driving conviction untouched.

The Court of Appeal refused leave, finding no legal issue of sufficient importance to warrant granting leave under section 839(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The respondent was charged with offences under the Ontario Water Resources Act.

At his second trial, the trial judge stayed the proceedings and awarded costs against the Crown, finding that the Crown had engaged in egregious prosecutorial misconduct amounting to an abuse of process and a breach of section 7 of the Charter.

The summary conviction appeal court upheld this decision.

The Crown appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the stay and costs award, and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge's conclusion of prosecutorial misconduct was tainted by palpable and overriding error and that many of the Crown's actions were sanctioned by court order.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, uttering a death threat, and unlawful confinement.

The trial judge granted a stay of proceedings, finding that the 30-month delay from the date of the charge to the scheduled trial date violated the accused's right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The Crown appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, concluding that the delay was not unreasonable given the mutual agreement to convert the case to a superior court trial with a preliminary inquiry, and the lack of significant prejudice to the accused.

The stay was set aside and the matter was directed to proceed to trial.

The appellant was convicted of attempted murder, robbery, and forcible confinement after a third trial, the first two having resulted in hung juries.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred in failing to give a limiting instruction regarding the lead police investigator's testimony, which included hearsay and personal opinions on the appellant's guilt.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the failure to provide a limiting instruction was a fatal error that could have led the jury to believe the police possessed undisclosed inculpatory evidence.

The court declined to apply the curative proviso given the prior hung juries, and entered a stay of proceedings rather than ordering a fourth trial.

The appellant brought an action in Ontario for injuries sustained in a slip and fall on a cruise ship owned by the respondent.

The respondent successfully moved to stay the action based on a forum selection clause in the cruise contract.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that the appellant was bound by the contract and failed to show strong cause why the forum selection clause should not be enforced.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision granting the respondent's motion to stay proceedings in Ontario.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred in finding Ontario had no jurisdiction based on presence or a real and substantial connection.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's application of the Muscutt factors, finding no palpable and overriding error in her factual findings or legal conclusions.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal that set aside a stay of proceedings and remitted the matter for trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that a stay of proceedings for abuse of process should only be granted in the clearest of cases where fundamental principles of justice are violated.

The Court found this was not such a case and that compelling the accused to stand trial would not be oppressive or vexatious.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal that allowed the Crown's appeal from a stay of proceedings.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, applying the principles from Askov and Morin to find that the delay from the time of the charge to the date set for trial was not unreasonable under section 11(b) of the Charter.

In a reference arising from an alleged miscarriage of justice, the Court considered whether summary contempt proceedings against a witness should continue after the witness testified and related criminal process developments occurred.

The Court held that the interests of justice no longer required the witness's conduct under oath to be dealt with summarily.

It left any further action to the appropriate prosecutorial authorities and stayed the contempt proceedings.

The appellant corporation was charged under the Occupational Health and Safety Act following a fatal industrial accident.

Due to a lack of court facilities, the trial was delayed for 19 months.

The appellant moved for a stay of proceedings, arguing its right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter was violated.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while a corporate accused can rely on s. 11(b), it cannot rely on the presumption of prejudice that applies to individual accused.

Since the appellant did not establish actual prejudice to its ability to make full answer and defence, the delay was not unreasonable and the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal which had set aside a stay of proceedings entered by the trial judge due to unreasonable delay.

On consent of both parties, the Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, finding that the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the Crown's appeal.

The order of the Court of Appeal was quashed and the stay of proceedings was restored.

The appellant was charged with historical sexual offences against his stepdaughter and daughters, with the charges laid up to 30 years after the alleged events.

The trial judge granted a stay of proceedings under the Charter, finding the pre-charge delay violated the appellant's rights to fundamental justice and a fair trial, and rejecting the complainants' explanation for the delay without hearing viva voce evidence.

The Court of Appeal set aside the stay.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that pre-charge delay alone does not automatically undermine trial fairness and that the trial judge erred in making credibility findings without a proper evidentiary basis.

The appellant was convicted of drug trafficking after persistently refusing the approaches of a police informer over six months.

He eventually sold drugs to the informer due to persistent requests, threats, and a large monetary inducement.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and entered a stay of proceedings, holding that entrapment is not a substantive defence but an aspect of abuse of process to be decided by the trial judge.

The Court established an objective test for entrapment, finding that the police conduct in this case went beyond merely providing an opportunity and amounted to an abuse of process.