R. v. Babos (A.), (2014) 454 N.R. 86 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., LeBel, Abella, Cromwell, Moldaver, Karakatsanis and Wagner, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court of Canada
• Case Date: Friday February 21, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2014), 454 N.R. 86 (SCC);2014 SCC 16;[2014] SCJ No 16 (QL);[2014] 1 SCR 309;367 DLR (4th) 575

R. v. Babos (A.) (2014), 454 N.R. 86 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2014] N.R. TBEd. FE.018

Antal Babos (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent)

Sergio Piccirilli (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent)

(34824; 2014 SCC 16; 2014 CSC 16)

Indexed As: R. v. Babos (A.)

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., LeBel, Abella, Cromwell, Moldaver, Karakatsanis and Wagner, JJ.

February 21, 2014.

Summary:

The accused were charged with 22 offences involving firearms, drugs and organized crime. Six months into the trial, the accused applied under s. 24(1) of the Charter to stay the proceedings for abuse of process. The accused alleged three separate incidents of state misconduct that, while admittedly not affecting trial fairness, did undermine the integrity of the judicial process (residual category): (1) twelve months before the trial, Crown counsel (removed before trial for health reasons) attempted to intimidate the accused by threatening additional charges unless they pleaded guilty; (2) two police officers colluded to mislead the court respecting the seizure of a firearm in the trunk of one of the accused's vehicle; and (3) the Crown improperly obtained the medical records of one of the accused without his consent. The trial judge granted a stay of proceedings. The Crown appealed.

The Quebec Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the stay and ordered a new trial. The accused appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, Abella, J., dissenting, dismissed the appeals. The court stated that "In deciding that a stay of proceedings is unwarranted in this case, I have assessed the three forms of alleged misconduct individually. The Crown's conduct in securing Mr. Piccirilli's medical records occasioned no prejudice to the integrity of the justice system. The harm caused by the finding of police collusion was curable through an alternate remedy: excluding the firearm from evidence against both appellants. And the Crown's threatening conduct, while reprehensible, did not approximate the type of shocking conduct needed to justify a stay".

Civil Rights - Topic 3157.4

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Abuse of process - [See both Civil Rights - Topic 8374].

Civil Rights - Topic 8374

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Stay of proceedings - The accused were charged with 22 offences involving firearms, drugs and organized crime - Six months into the trial, the accused applied under s. 24(1) of the Charter to stay the proceedings for abuse of process - The accused alleged three separate incidents of state misconduct that, while admittedly not affecting trial fairness, did undermine the integrity of the judicial process (residual category): (1) twelve months before the trial, Crown counsel (removed before trial for health reasons) attempted to intimidate the accused by threatening additional charges unless they pleaded guilty; (2) two police officers colluded to mislead the court respecting the seizure of a firearm in the trunk of one of the accused's vehicle; and (3) the Crown improperly obtained the medical records of one of the accused without his consent - The trial judge granted a stay of proceedings - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "In deciding that a stay of proceedings is unwarranted in this case, I have assessed the three forms of alleged misconduct individually. The Crown's conduct in securing Mr. Piccirilli's medical records occasioned no prejudice to the integrity of the justice system. The harm caused by the finding of police collusion was curable through an alternate remedy: excluding the firearm from evidence against both appellants. And the Crown's threatening conduct, while reprehensible, did not approximate the type of shocking conduct needed to justify a stay." - See paragraphs 30 to 74.

Civil Rights - Topic 8374

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Stay of proceedings - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "this Court has recognized that there are rare occasions - 'the clearest of cases' - when a stay of proceedings for an abuse of process will be warranted ... These cases generally fall into two categories: 1) where state conduct compromises the fairness of an accused's trial (the 'main' category); and 2) where state conduct creates no threat to trial fairness but risks undermining the integrity of the judicial process (the 'residual' category) ... The test used to determine whether a stay of proceedings is warranted is the same for both categories and consists of three requirements: 1) There must be prejudice to the accused's right to a fair trial or the integrity of the justice system that 'will be manifested, perpetuated or aggravated through the conduct of the trial, or by its outcome'; 2) There must be no alternative remedy capable of redressing the prejudice; and 3) Where there is still uncertainty over whether a stay is warranted after steps 1) and 2), the court is required to balance the interests in favour of granting a stay, such as denouncing misconduct and preserving the integrity of the justice system, against 'the interest that society has in having a final decision on the merits' ... Commencing with the first stage of the test, when the main category is invoked, the question is whether the accused's right to a fair trial has been prejudiced and whether that prejudice will be carried forward through the conduct of the trial; in other words, the concern is whether there is ongoing unfairness to the accused. By contrast, when the residual category is invoked, the question is whether the state has engaged in conduct that is offensive to societal notions of fair play and decency and whether proceeding with a trial in the face of that conduct would be harmful to the integrity of the justice system. ... Where the concern is trial fairness, the focus is on restoring an accused's right to a fair trial. Here, procedural remedies, such as ordering a new trial, are more likely to address the prejudice of ongoing unfairness. Where the residual category is invoked, however, and the prejudice complained of is prejudice to the integrity of the justice system, remedies must be directed towards that harm. ... the focus is on whether an alternate remedy short of a stay of proceedings will adequately dissociate the justice system from the impugned state conduct going forward." - Finally, the court noted that while the third and final balancing step often added little to the inquiry for the main category (trial fairness), "when the residual category is invoked, the balancing stage takes on added importance." - See paragraphs 30 to 41.

Criminal Law - Topic 255

Abuse of process - Power of court - Re prevention and remedies - [See both Civil Rights - Topic 8374].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Regan (G.A.), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 297; 282 N.R. 1; 201 N.S.R.(2d) 63; 629 A.P.R. 63; 2002 SCC 12, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. O'Connor (H.P.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 411; 191 N.R. 1; 68 B.C.A.C. 1; 112 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 31].

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Tobiass et al., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 391; 218 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Keyowski, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 657; 83 N.R. 296; 65 Sask.R. 122, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Waugh (1985), 68 N.S.R.(2d) 247; 159 A.P.R. 247 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Bellusci (R.), [2012] 2 S.C.R. 509; 433 N.R. 135; 2012 SCC 44, refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Zarinchang (D.) (2010), 261 O.A.C. 153; 99 O.R.(3d) 721; 2010 ONCA 286, refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Conway, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1659; 96 N.R. 241; 34 O.A.C. 165, refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Bjelland (J.C.), [2009] 2 S.C.R. 651; 391 N.R. 202; 460 A.R. 230; 462 W.A.C. 230; 2009 SCC 38, refd to. [para. 48].

Boucher v. R., [1955] S.C.R. 16, refd to. [para. 61].

United States of America v. Cobb et al., [2001] 1 S.C.R. 587; 267 N.R. 203; 145 O.A.C. 3; 2001 SCC 19, refd to. [para. 70].

United States of America v. Shulman, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 616; 268 N.R. 115; 145 O.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 82].

Counsel:

Franco Schiro and Xuan Trung Nguyen, for the appellant, Antal Babos;

Guylaine Tardif, Jean-Pierre Pilon and Maxime Wilkins, for the appellant, Sergio Piccirilli;

Gilles Villeneuve and François Lacasse, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Étude Légale Franco Schiro, Montreal, Quebec, for the appellant, Antal Babos;

Pilon & Associés, Montreal, Quebec, for the appellant, Sergio Piccirilli;

Public Prosecution Service of Canada, Montreal, Quebec, and Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

These appeals were heard on October 9, 2013, before McLachlin, C.J.C., LeBel, Abella, Cromwell, Moldaver, Karakatsanis and Wagner, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On February 21, 2014, the judgment of the Court was delivered in both official languages and the following opinions were filed:

Moldaver, J. (McLachlin, C.J.C., LeBel, Cromwell, Karakatsanis and Wagner, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 74;

Abella, J., dissenting - see paragraphs 75 to 87.