W.A. Chalmers

The applicants sought certiorari to quash witness summonses issued under the Provincial Offences Act, alleging abuse of process due to city officials misleading them into providing information.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicants could not demonstrate sufficient personal prejudice, that the trial court was the appropriate forum to address abuse of process arguments (which primarily protect accused persons), and that interlocutory prerogative relief should be granted only rarely to prevent delay and fragmentation of quasi-criminal proceedings, especially in light of R. v. Jordan.

The plaintiff brought a motion regarding evidentiary issues arising from a scheduled show cause hearing under Rule 48.14.

The plaintiff had delivered its show cause record only one week before the hearing, prompting the defendant to serve a responding affidavit raising the issue of prejudice.

The plaintiff sought to file a Reply Record and cross-examine the defendant's affiant on prejudice.

The Master found the plaintiff was responsible for the late delivery of materials but, given the severe consequences of a show cause hearing, exercised discretion to allow the plaintiff to file a Reply Record and conduct the cross-examination, restricted solely to the issue of prejudice and subject to costs.