R. v. Bramwell, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1126
Henry Lewis Bramwell Appellant
v.
Her Majesty The Queen Respondent
Indexed as: R. v. Bramwell
1996: November 29.
Present: Lamer C.J. and Sopinka, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for british columbia
Criminal law ‑‑ Stay of proceedings ‑‑ Trial judge erring in granting stay of proceedings ‑‑ Court of Appeal justified in reviewing and reversing trial judge’s exercise of discretion.
APPEAL from a judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal (1996), 1996 CanLII 352 (BC CA), 72 B.C.A.C. 125, 119 W.A.C. 125, 106 C.C.C. (3d) 365, allowing the Crown’s appeal from a stay of proceedings and ordering a new trial. Appeal dismissed.
James W. Millar, for the appellant.
Bruce Johnstone, for the respondent.
\Sopinka J.\
The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by
1Sopinka J. ‑‑ This appeal is here as of right. We agree with the Court of Appeal that this was not one of the clearest cases in which a stay of proceedings was warranted. In our opinion, the Court of Appeal was justified in reviewing and reversing the trial judge’s exercise of his discretion by reason of the trial judge’s failure to take into account the absence on the part of the appellant of timely objection to non‑disclosure and by reason of the trial judge’s error in finding that a stay was the only appropriate remedy. The appeal is dismissed.
Judgment accordingly.
Solicitor for the appellant: James W. Millar Law Corp., Vancouver.
Solicitor for the respondent: The Ministry of the Attorney General, Vancouver.
