R. v. Blais, 2026 ONSC 3962

CITATION: R. v. Blais, 2026 ONSC 3962

COURT FILE NO.: 26-9299

DATE: 2026-07-07

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

Respondent

– and –

MATTHEW BLAIS

Appellant

– and –

STEPHEN CLANCY JAMES CLANCY WAYNE STEWART RICHARD ANGER

Accused

Trent Wilson, for the Respondent

Self Represented

HEARD: June 30, 2026

Rasaiah J.

REASONS ON APPLICATION

OVERVIEW

1The applicant, Matthew Blais, was involved in a pre-enquete hearing November 28, 2025 (“hearing”), seeking to issue process of an 11-count information against four accused.

2He seeks review of the withdrawal endorsed by the Justice of the Peace (“J.P.”) at the hearing at the request of the Crown (who intervened at the hearing after the evidence was assessed by the J.P.). It was not clearly set out in the materials filed what the applicant was asserting other than he believed the Crown presented him as “malicious” and that all he wanted was justice. He has from the start and continues to represent himself. Before me, the applicant also raised that he did not believe that during the process, his evidence was truly considered and looked at and took issue with the conduct of the Crown.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS

3The applicant commenced a private prosecution. The acts/allegations complained involved a confrontation that is said to have occurred on January 13, 2025, emanating from the applicant picking up his children from school and parking his vehicle to do so near and/or on the area of the entrance/driveway of one of the four accused, Stephen Clancy (this was stated to be the designated bus drop off – the applicant’s position was that he was on the road allowance area he states was designated for same; the others involved are alleged to have believed the area to be the property of Stephen Clancy). Mr. Blais swore an 11-count information. I will not repeat the counts. They are set out clearly in the file in the information filed for the application and the transcript of the hearing.

4The applicant was the informant at the hearing. The applicant came to court with his evidence, including but not limited to a video recording of the alleged assault of himself, police reports, medical evidence, maps, statements, 911 recordings, photos, and other documents/evidence. As to the process, it was fair. I noted that he was invited to tell the J.P. what evidence he had on each offence being alleged, one by one. He was able to present his assertion that lies that had been told and that he himself was charged arising from the incident along with others. The applicant was not convicted of charges laid against him; they were withdrawn. The same occurred with respect to related charges, including Stephen Clancy. The applicant was properly questioned by the court during the process of the hearing. He was given the opportunity to explain each of his complaints. The transcript reveals that he was given opportunity to present what he has presented and/or filed on this application. The applicant’s argument presented to me as he felt the video recordings and other things he presented were enough and ought to have been looked at closely. He did not seem to appreciate for example that the video recordings were not evidence of intention to assemble or abet, although being evidence of the event itself, the acts, portions he was able to capture.

5Of note, at the hearing, the applicant recognized that Stephen Clancy had been charged arising from the occurrence and that matter had in fact been prosecuted. It was clear on the record at the hearing that charges involving Stephen Clancy included same offences already laid by and/or investigated by police and that were already dealt with (counts one, two, three, four, five and six were related to the same occurrence). The J.P., correctly on the principles of double jeopardy, accordingly, determined no process would issue for the counts related to Stephen Clancy. This individual had been dealt with in accordance with the law for acts related to the occurrence as the Crown in their discretion processed from the police investigation that was done specifically regarding the incident, and the process included judicial pre-trial.

6On the counts related to the other alleged participants, the J.P. found there was no evidence of the element of “intention” to assemble (counts one and two). The record supports this finding. The applicant presented as not understanding that he had no evidence, again that the video recording was not evidence of this or the statements filed. Before me, he stated it was his feeling; this is not evidence.

7For counts seven, and eight, involving James Clancy, the JP was satisfied there was enough to issue process (page 30 of the transcript).

8The J.P. was not satisfied for count 9 and 11 finding no evidence of intention to be “misleading”; identifying the alleged accused persons were expressing their understanding of the property/property line and what they believed to be trespassing. The record before the J.P. supported this finding. I find no error in the examination of the evidence provided; that it lacked evidentiary support. There was no evidence.

9Regarding count 10, the J.P. was not satisfied there was evidence to support “intention” of abetting. The record before the J.P. supported this finding. I find no error in the examination of the evidence provided; that it lacked evidentiary support. There was no evidence. The comments made above regarding the video recordings, statements and the applicant’s feeling he had, apply here; there was no evidence.

10In sum, the court found evidence only to support counts seven and eight with respect to James Clancy, meaning sufficient evidence to compel this individual to appear in court to answer to those charges.

11The Crown intervened.

12In addition to what was already elicited, the Crown confirmed on the record that the entire incident had been investigated and considered by the police agency having jurisdiction over the incident. The police had considered the video footage. The applicant before me acknowledged and offered that the Crown would have had his information at the pre-trial stage (when dealing with the incident and the charges that were laid from the incident). The Crown confirmed the charge laid against Stephen Clancy was dealt with (peace bond) and the charges were withdrawn, and other related charges withdrawn; that this was after reviewing the police investigation and having had judicial pre-trials in some cases. The Crown essentially expressed a view that further and/or additional charges would be malicious and not in the interests of justice. The Crown advised they were seeking withdrawal (of the counts that the J.P. did find there was some evidence). Mr. Wilson before me today, and I agree, noted that this was a case for the Crown to intervene given the police investigation of the incident, and the processing of it prior to the applicant swearing the information.

13I recognize that the J.P. was prepared to issue the information and process for counts seven and eight. However, on this note, the court also acknowledged that their threshold is lower, namely “some evidence” which is a different standard of assessment from that of the Crown; the Crown’s standards for prosecution are different; more importantly, moreover, this was a matter that had been investigated by police prior and dealt with (this fact is significant).

14As to intervening, the Crown has a responsibility to supervise all prosecutions. The Crown is a participant in pre-enquete hearings. They may decide to intervene. That is what happened in this case, and there was nothing out of order with same, given the preceding history. Once a Crown intervenes, the case then becomes one between the Crown and the alleged accused persons. As such, the case becomes subject to the prosecutorial discretion of the Crown. At the moment of intervention, the applicant is no longer a party, he becomes a witness/complainant in the case; the Crown has charge of the case.

15The transcript indicates that the Crown sought a withdrawal after confirming a request to intervene. As to the decision of the Crown, the Crown indicated the concerns/the basis:

a) Malicious process concerns given the information related to an investigation already having been conducted by police with jurisdiction over the incident from which charges against those police felt were supported by grounds, they were laid and dealt with; and

b) Public interest in further or additional prosecution related to the incident (implication there being none given the foregoing).

16Again, the Crown has the power to take over a private prosecution. The Crown may continue a prosecution or discontinue after a process is issued. That is what happened in this case, the Crown chose to discontinue; to withdraw for the said stated reasons.

17It is the function/role of the Crown to assess and determine public interest in prosecution and/or reasonable prospect of conviction. In this case, again, it was clearly more than that; the matter had been investigated by the police as aforesaid and dealt with. The applicant’s feelings on how the police dealt with the matter and/or the Crown dealt with the matters, prior to his actions of swearing an information, is not a basis for permitting his application and/or intervention.

18A Crown’s decision to withdraw is one of the core prosecutorial powers that are generally immune from judicial review. It is well established that the Crown’s said power is generally immune from judicial review to protect the integrity of our system of prosecution. It is very rare that a court will intervene; there must be a basis.

19In this case, I find that there is no evidence of flagrant impropriety on the part of the Crown. There is no evidence of abuse of process to warrant judicial interference, or fraud, or misconduct. There was no conduct on the part of the Crown attorney in this case that shocks the community’s conscience or offends its sense of fair play and decency. In fact, there was evidence the Crown was pursuing an interest of preventing an abuse of process of further offences being issued when the matter had already been investigated and dealt with after their review and/or after judicial pre-trials.

20The transcript presents the Crown as being cordial and polite. It is of no moment that the Crown advised in advance that they were going to intervene (at the start) on the facts of this case, or that this discussion occurred between the Crown and the J.P. It was clear in the transcript that the J.P. engaged the process as set out in above paragraphs herein

21As for the applicant asserting that the Crown was expressing feelings that he, himself, was being “malicious” the Crown’s comment on my review of the transcript was not pointed at the applicant at all, but at the duties and responsibilities of the Crown and the fact that the incident had been investigated and dealt with; it was about preventing an abuse of process. The applicant presented to me as not understanding that there are rules against charging someone twice for offences for which they have already faced and/or that a Crown cannot abuse their prosecutorial power by pursuing charges against individuals that were already considered and/or are not supported by facts and evidence that could support a reasonable prospect of conviction; the Crown cannot deliberately disregard the foregoing – the Crown was referring to the legal concept of malicious prosecution/abuse of process, not identifying the applicant as being malicious. In fairness, the applicant is not a lawyer, and this was not accordingly understood.

22As for consideration of the evidence by the Crown, the Crown was present for the entire hearing from start to finish, where essentially all the evidence the applicant relies on in this appeal was in fact presented and heard by the Crown. The Crown asked some questions, not many, but understandably so, as this was not the first time they had dealt with the incident (meaning the other proceedings). Based on the record before me, it cannot be said that the Crown refused to hear or consider any evidence. The Crown confirmed in fact, they had reviewed all the applicant’s evidence at the hearing. The foregoing is evident in the transcript filed.

23For all these reasons, the record reflects no reason/ground to interfere.

CONCLUSION

24The record does not reflect that the J.P. exceeded jurisdiction or made any fundamental error or that there was any breach of the rules of natural justice; the process conducted fairly. The Crown has the power to intervene in a private prosecution. Thereafter, if the Crown intervenes, which they did, the private prosecutor is removed; the Crown is the prosecutor, and in this case, the applicant became a complainant/witness. The power to withdraw the charges in question was a power possessed by the Crown; prosecutorial discretion. On the record before me, there is no evidence that establishes abuse of process, or any other applicable factor, in relation to the actions of the Crown at this hearing to ground interference. In fact, the record reflects that the Crown sought the withdrawal for very legitimate reasons. The onus on this application has not been met by the appellant; there is no basis established for judicial intervention/interference accordingly.

ORDER

25For the reasons stated herein, the application is dismissed.

Rasaiah J.

Released: July 07, 2026

CITATION: R. v. Blais, 2026 ONSC 3962