R. v. Finn, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 10

Dana Marie Finn Appellant

v.

Her Majesty The Queen Respondent

Indexed as: R. v. Finn

File No.: 25292.

1997: January 30.

Present: Sopinka, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.

on appeal from the court of appeal for newfoundland

Criminal law ‑‑ Abuse of process ‑‑ Purpose of prosecution not to advance civil interest of complainant to recover debt ‑‑ Trial judge erring in finding abuse of process.

Constitutional law ‑‑ Charter of Rights ‑‑ Trial within reasonable time ‑‑ No violation of accused’s right to be tried within reasonable time ‑‑ Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 11(b).

Statutes and Regulations Cited

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 11(b).

APPEAL from a judgment of the Newfoundland Court of Appeal (1996), 1996 CanLII 6632 (NL CA), 139 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 97, 433 A.P.R. 97, 106 C.C.C. (3d) 43, 36 C.R.R. (2d) 123, allowing the Crown’s appeal from a stay of proceedings and ordering a new trial. Appeal dismissed.

R. Michael Newton, for the appellant.

Wayne Gorman, for the respondent.

The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by

[1] Sopinka J. ‑‑ This is an appeal as of right. In our opinion this is not one of those clearest of cases in which an abuse of process should be found. The charges were laid after an independent investigation and decision by the authorities. It cannot therefore be said that the purpose of the prosecution was to advance the civil interest of the complainant to recover a debt. Moreover, there was no unfairness such as would amount to an abuse of process.

[2] With respect to the alleged unreasonable delay, we agree with the reasons of Marshall J.A. in the Court of Appeal that no violation of s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms occurred.

[3] The appeal is dismissed.

Judgment accordingly.

Solicitor for the appellant: Newfoundland Legal Aid Commission, St. John’s.

Solicitor for the respondent: The Department of Justice, St. John’s.