DATE: 20011129 DOCKET:C36368

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

RE:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Appellant) – and – P.R. (Young Offender) (Respondent)

BEFORE:

McMURTRY C.J.O., CATZMAN AND GOUDGE JJ.A.

COUNSEL:

Nadia E. Thomas

For the appellant

David M. Midanik

For the respondent

HEARD:

November 23, 2001

RELEASED ORALLY:

November 23, 2001

On appeal from order for a stay of proceedings by Justice D.R. Main dated April 26, 2001.

ENDORSEMENT

[1] Justice Main’s concern with the slow pace of Crown disclosure in this case was heavily motivated by his concern over the circumstances in which the appellant was held in custody. While we have considerable sympathy for this concern, in our view, it does not lead to the remedy he imposed in the circumstances of this case. As has often been said, a stay is a remedy to be used only in the clearest of cases.

[2] Moreover, in this case it was not directly responsive to Justice Main’s concern. As this court said in R. v. Douglas, 1991 CanLII 7328 (ON CA), 5 O.R. (3d) 29 at p. 31:

In any event, even assuming that the late Crown disclosure constituted a violation of the respondent’s Charter right, in our opinion a stay was not an appropriate remedy.

… The remedy should, in general, be responsive to the violation. It should not be crafted to discipline the police or the Crown.

[3] In summary, even assuming that Main J. had jurisdiction to make the order he did, this was not an appropriate case for a stay. The appeal must be allowed, the stay set aside, and the matter remitted to the Youth Court for disposition.

“R.R. McMurtry C.J.O.”

“M.A. Catzman J.A.”

“S.T. Goudge J.A.”