R. v. Wickstead, 1997 CanLII 370 (SCC), [1997] 1 SCR 307

R. v. Wickstead, 1997 CanLII 370 (SCC), [1997] 1 SCR 307

Anne Marie Wickstead Appellant

v.

Her Majesty The Queen Respondent

Indexed as: R. v. Wickstead

File No.: 25350.

1997: February 14.

Present: Lamer C.J. and La Forest, L’Heureux‑Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.

on appeal from the court of appeal for ontario

Constitutional law ‑‑ Charter of Rights ‑‑ Remedy -- Violation of accused’s right to make full answer and defence ‑‑ Notwithstanding breach of right to make full answer and defence, adjournment the appropriate remedy rather than a stay of proceedings.

Cases Cited

Referred to: R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326; R. v. O’Connor, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 411.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal (sub nom. R. v. Wicksted) (1996), 29 O.R. (3d) 144, 90 O.A.C. 374, 106 C.C.C. (3d) 385, allowing an appeal from a stay of proceedings ordered by Jenkins J. Appeal dismissed.

James Lockyer, for the appellant.

Scott C. Hutchison, for the respondent.

//Sopinka J.//

The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by

1Sopinka J. ‑‑ We agree with the thorough reasons of Goodman J.A. speaking for a unanimous Court of Appeal (1996), 29 O.R. (3d) 144, that although there was a breach of the appellant’s right to make full answer and defence, the trial judge erred in the exercise of discretion in finding that this was one of those clearest of cases in which a stay was the only appropriate remedy. We agree with Goodman J.A. that in the circumstances of this case an adjournment was the appropriate remedy.

2We would only add that the test for determining the degree of relevance required in order to attract the obligation of the Crown to produce is that set out in this Court’s judgments in R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326, and R. v. O’Connor, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 411. The introduction of other language to describe this test such as “an air of reality” should be avoided.

3The appeal is dismissed.