Maude Payette

The appellant Crown appealed from the Quebec Court of Appeal's affirmation of a stay of proceedings granted by the trial judge.

The accused had been charged with second degree murder in August 2012, with a delay of nearly five years between the charge and the anticipated end of trial.

The Court found that the delay far exceeded the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan, holding that the preliminary hearing was not a discrete exceptional event and that its length was not outside the Crown's control.

The transitional exceptional circumstance did not justify the delay, as the case would have warranted a stay under the prior R. v. Morin framework given institutional delay of approximately 43 months.

The trial judge's determination that a stay of proceedings was warranted was upheld.

The Crown brought a motion to quash the respondent's notice of appeal as of right to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Court of Appeal had been unanimous in dismissing the accused's appeal from his convictions, and the accused had filed a notice of appeal as of right based on an alleged disagreement between appellate judges on a point of law.

The Court held that a dissent giving rise to an appeal as of right under s. 691(1)(a) of the Criminal Code must be a disagreement that affects the result.

Because the disagreement expressed by one judge went only to reasoning and did not affect the result, it was properly characterized as a concurring opinion rather than a dissent.

Motion to quash granted.