R. v. Courtice Auto Wreckers Ltd., (2014) 317 O.A.C. 265 (CA)

• Judge: Cronk, Rouleau and Tulloch, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: October 18, 2013
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (2014), 317 O.A.C. 265 (CA);2014 ONCA 189

R. v. Courtice Auto Wreckers Ltd. (2014), 317 O.A.C. 265 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] O.A.C. TBEd. MR.040

Her Majesty the Queen (appellant) v. Courtice Auto Wreckers Limited (respondent)

(C56426; 2014 ONCA 189)

Indexed As: R. v. Courtice Auto Wreckers Ltd.

Ontario Court of Appeal

Cronk, Rouleau and Tulloch, JJ.A.

March 11, 2014.

Summary:

Courtice Auto Wreckers Ltd. was charged under the Provincial Offences Act (POA) with failing to comply with an order issued by a Director of the Ministry of the Environment. The trial was scheduled for a date more than 20 months after the information was laid. Courtice applied for a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter on the grounds that its s. 11(b) right to be tried within a reasonable time had been violated. A justice of the peace granted the stay. The Crown appealed the stay pursuant to s. 116(1) of the POA.

The Ontario Court of Justice dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction. The court held that the proper avenue for appealing a stay under the POA was by way of certiorari in the Superior Court (POA, s. 140(1)). The Crown obtained leave to appeal and appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the decision of the Court of Justice and remitted the matter back to the Court of Justice to determine the merits of the Crown's appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 8380.5

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Appeals (incl. standard of review) - Courtice Auto Wreckers Ltd. was charged with an offence under the Provincial Offences Act (POA) - Courtice obtained a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter on the grounds that its s. 11(b) right to be tried within a reasonable time had been violated - The Crown appealed the stay pursuant to s. 116(1) of the POA, which stated that "Where a proceeding is commenced by information ... the prosecutor ... may appeal from, (b) a dismissal" - The trial judge dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction, holding that the proper avenue for appealing a stay under the POA was by way of certiorari under s. 140(1) of the POA - The Crown appealed, arguing that the reasoning in R. v. Jewitt (1985 SCC) applied - The court in Jewitt held that the decision of a trial court imposing a permanent stay for an abuse of process was "tantamount to a judgment or verdict of acquittal" for the purposes of determining the Crown's appeal rights under the Criminal Code - The Crown submitted that the term "dismissal" in s. 116(1)(b) encompassed acquittals and other final dispositions that were tantamount to an acquittal, which included a stay of proceedings entered as a Charter remedy - The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal - The reasoning in Jewitt applied - The fact that the Criminal Code was amended after Jewitt to specifically provide the Crown with a right of appeal from a judicial stay, and no similar amendment was made to the POA, was not relevant - The amendments did not effect a change in the law; they simply made express what the Supreme Court viewed as the existing situation in law - The fact that the Criminal Code used the term "acquittal" while s. 116(1) of the POA used the term "dismissal" was also irrelevant, since the POA used both terms interchangeably - This interpretation of "dismissal" better achieved the intended purpose of the POA - It was simpler and more straightforward to challenge the correctness of a judicial stay by way of appeal rather than through the prerogative writs, particularly for a self-represented accused.

Criminal Law - Topic 10.13

General principles - General and definitions - Stay defined - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8380.5 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4435

Procedure - Verdicts - Discharges and dismissals - Dismissal - General - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8380.5 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 7122

Extraordinary remedies - Certiorari - When available - Courtice Auto Wreckers Ltd. was charged with an offence under the Provincial Offences Act (POA) - Courtice obtained a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter on the grounds that its s. 11(b) right to be tried within a reasonable time had been violated - The Crown appealed the stay pursuant to s. 116(1) of the POA, which stated that "Where a proceeding is commenced by information ... the prosecutor ... may appeal from, (b) a dismissal" - The trial judge dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction, holding that the proper avenue for appealing a stay under the POA was by way of certiorari under s. 140(1) of the POA - The Crown appealed, arguing that the reasoning in In R. v. Jewitt (1985 SCC) applied - The court in Jewitt held the decision of a trial court imposing a permanent stay for an abuse of process was "tantamount to a judgment or verdict of acquittal" for the purposes of determining the Crown's appeal rights under the Criminal Code - The Crown submitted that the term "dismissal" in s. 116(1)(b) encompassed acquittals and other final dispositions that were tantamount to an acquittal, which included a stay of proceedings entered as a Charter remedy - Courtice argued that Jewitt was distinguishable because the decision in that case was driven by a concern that the Crown should not be left without a remedy - Under the POA, where no appeal lied, the Crown still had a remedy because the prerogative writs were available - The Ontario Court of Appeal rejected Courtice's argument and allowed the appeal - The reasoning in Jewitt applied - Nowhere in Jewitt was it suggested that an attempt was being made to fill a legislative gap - In any event, certiorari would not have provided the Crown with a remedy in this case - Generally speaking, it was only on the basis of jurisdictional error that the prerogative writs could be issued - Even if the stay was issued in error, it was an error of law that was within the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace - See paragraphs 28 to 33.

Trials - Topic 1182

Summary convictions - Appeals - When available - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8380.5 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Boise Cascade Canada Ltd., [1991] O.J. No. 1831 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Barker, [1992] O.J. No. 545 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. VTC Industrial Coatings Ltd., [1996] O.J. No. 5478 (Prov. Div.), refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Sansone, [1992] O.J. No. 3728 (Prov. Div.), refd to. [para. 12].

Ontario (Minister of Environment) v. Sault Ste. Marie (City), [2007] O.T.C. Uned. N66; 34 C.E.L.R.(3d) 123 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Smith (D.), [2008] O.T.C. Uned. E82; 175 C.R.R.(2d) 13 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Kramer (2007), 31 M.P.L.R.(4th) 79 (Ont. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Jewitt, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 128; 61 N.R. 159, appld. [para. 13].

Statutes Noticed:

Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P-33, sect. 116(1) [para. 8].

Counsel:

Danielle Meuleman and Sarah Kromkamp, for the appellant;

Jeffrey R. Manishen, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on October 18, 2013, before Cronk, Rouleau and Tulloch, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. Rouleau, J.A., devliered the following judgment for the court on March 11, 2014.