Montréal

On a criminal appeal from Quebec, the Court considered whether the Crown could challenge, within an appeal against acquittal, a trial judge’s pretrial order directing a judge-alone murder trial despite the Crown’s refusal to consent under s. 473(1) of the Criminal Code.

The Court held that the appellate court had jurisdiction to hear that legal challenge, but erred by treating the refusal as reviewable only for abuse of process and by nullifying the trial.

The majority held that the refusal did not fall within core prosecutorial discretion and that, in any event, a tailored s. 24(1) Charter remedy was available because the trial judge had found a probable future s. 11(b) delay breach in pandemic conditions.

The appeal was allowed, the new-trial order was quashed, and the matter was remanded for determination of unresolved Crown grounds of appeal.

On a criminal appeal from Quebec, the Court considered whether the Crown could challenge, within an appeal against acquittal, a trial judge’s pretrial order directing a judge-alone murder trial despite the Crown’s refusal to consent under s. 473(1) of the Criminal Code.

The Court held that the appellate court had jurisdiction to hear that legal challenge, but erred by treating the refusal as reviewable only for abuse of process and by nullifying the trial.

The majority held that the refusal did not fall within core prosecutorial discretion and that, in any event, a tailored s. 24(1) Charter remedy was available because the trial judge had found a probable future s. 11(b) delay breach in pandemic conditions.

The appeal was allowed, the new-trial order was quashed, and the matter was remanded for determination of unresolved Crown grounds of appeal.

On a private contempt proceeding arising from student strike injunctions, the Court addressed strict procedural and substantive safeguards required before liberty-limiting sanctions may be imposed.

The majority held that contempt notice must clearly identify the alleged offence and that knowledge and intent requirements must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt for the branch relied upon.

On the evidentiary record, the moving party failed to prove actual or inferred knowledge of the specific order and could not sustain liability under the advanced theory.

The acquittal entered by the provincial appellate court was upheld.

The Court dismissed Quebec’s appeal and held that Parliament could constitutionally require destruction of long-gun registry records under its criminal law power, while confirming Quebec had no legal entitlement to compel transfer of the data.

The Court dismissed Quebec’s appeal and held that Parliament could constitutionally require destruction of long-gun registry records under its criminal law power, while confirming Quebec had no legal entitlement to compel transfer of the data.