R. v. Jewitt, (1985) 61 N.R. 159 (SCC)

• Judge: Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer, Wilson and Le Dain, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: September 19, 1985
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1985), 61 N.R. 159 (SCC);JE 85-916;61 NR 159;1985 CanLII 47 (SCC);20 DLR (4th) 651;EYB 1985-150130;21 CCC (3d) 7;15 WCB 2;[1985] 2 SCR 128;[1985] ACS no 53;[1985] SCJ No 53 (QL);[1985] 6 WWR 127;47 CR (3d) 193

R. v. Jewitt (1985), 61 N.R. 159 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Jewitt

Indexed As: R. v. Jewitt

Supreme Court of Canada

Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer, Wilson and Le Dain, JJ.

September 19, 1985.

Summary:

The accused was charged with trafficking in a narcotic. At trial, the accused admitted selling marijuana, but submitted that the defence of entrapment applied where he was persuaded to sell the drug by a police informer. The jury accepted the defence of unlawful entrapment. The British Columbia County Court stayed the proceedings for abuse of process. The Crown appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, Anderson, J.A., dissenting, in a judgment reported 5 C.C.C.(3d) 334, dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction. The majority held that a stay of proceedings was not a "judgment or verdict of acquittal" under s. 605 of the Criminal Code of Canada, therefore the Crown had no right of appeal. The Crown appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and remitted the issues raised on the initial appeal to the British Columbia Court of Appeal for determination. The court held that courts did have the power, in the clearest of cases, to stay proceedings for abuse of process and that the stay of proceedings was tantamount to an acquittal, giving the Crown a right of appeal under s. 605.

Criminal Law - Topic 10.4

Acquittal defined - An accused pleaded not guilty to trafficking - The jury was empanelled and the accused was placed "in charge" - The Crown presented its case - The accused testified - Counsel addressed the jury - The jury returned a verdict of "unlawful entrapment" - The trial judge directed a stay of proceedings for abuse of process - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the stay of proceedings was tantamount to an acquittal - See paragraph 38.

Criminal Law - Topic 255

Abuse of process - Power of court to prevent abuse of process and grant accused a stay of proceedings - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "there is a residual discretion in a trial court judge to stay proceedings where compelling an accused to stand trial would violate those fundamental principles of justice which underlie the community's sense of fair play and decency and to prevent the abuse of a court's process through oppressive or vexatious proceedings" - The court cautioned that this power should be exercised only in the "clearest of cases" - See paragraph 25.

Criminal Law - Topic 4826

Appeals - Indictable offences - Right of appeal - Requirement of decision on merits at trial - Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, s. 605 - Pursuant to s. 605(1)(a) the Crown had a right of appeal against a "judgment or verdict of acquittal of a trial court" - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the quashing of an indictment or a stay of proceedings was tantamount to an acquittal, giving the Crown the right of appeal, where (1) the decision to quash or stay was not based on defects in the indictment or technical procedural irregularities and (2) the decision was a final decision resting on a question of law alone, such that if the accused were charged subsequently with the same offence he or she could plead autrefois acquit - See paragraph 38.

Criminal Law - Topic 4826

Appeals - Indictable offences - Right of appeal - Requirement of decision on merits at trial - An accused pleaded not guilty to trafficking - The jury was empanelled and the accused was placed "in charge" - The Crown presented its case - The accused testified - Counsel addressed the jury - The jury returned a verdict of "unlawful entrapment" - The trial judge directed a stay of proceedings for abuse of process - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the stay of proceedings was tantamount to an acquittal, therefore the Crown had a right of appeal under s. 605 of the Criminal Code of Canada - See paragraph 38.

Words and Phrases

Acquittal - The Supreme Court of Canada held that a stay of proceedings could constitute an "acquittal" within the meaning of the phrase "judgment or verdict of acquittal", as found in s. 605(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada - See paragraph 38.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Rourke, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 1021; 16 N.R. 181, consd. [para. 6].

Sproule, Re (1886), 12 S.C.R. 140, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Osborn, [1971] S.C.R. 184, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Amato, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 418; 42 N.R. 487, consd. [para. 7].

Director of Public Prosecutions v. Humphrys, [1976] 2 All E.R. 497 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Lebrun (1978), 7 C.R.(3d) 93 (B.C.C.A.) refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Catagas (1977), 2 C.R.(3d) 328 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

Ball and The Queen, Re (1978), 44 C.C.C.(2d) 532 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

Abarca and The Queen, Re (1980), 57 C.C.C.(2d) 410 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

Abitibi Paper Co. Ltd. and The Queen, Re (1979), 47 C.C.C.(2d) 487 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Crneck, Bradley and Shelley (1980), 30 O.R.(2d) 1 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Orysiuk (1977), 6 A.R. 548; 37 C.C.C.(2d) 445 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Erven, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 926; 25 N.R. 49, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Krannenburg, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1053; 31 N.R. 206; 20 A.R. 504, consd. [para. 16].

R. v. Miller (1984), 12 C.C.C.(3d) 54 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Boross (1984), 53 A.R. 257; 12 C.C.C.(3d) 480 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Hamm (1984), 34 Sask.R. 241 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Young (1984), 3 O.A.C. 254; 40 C.R.(3d) 289, agreed with [para. 20].

R. v. Belton (1982), 19 Man.R.(2d) 132; 31 C.R.(3d) 223 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

Balderstone et al. and The Queen, Re (1983), 23 Man.R.(2d) 125; 8 C.C.C. (3d) 532 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Perry (1984), 56 N.B.R.(2d) 361; 146 A.P.R. 361; 14 C.C.C.(3d) 5 (N.B.C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

Connelly v. D.P.P., [1964] A.C. 1254 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 24].

Lattoni and Corbo v. The Queen, [1958] S.C.R. 603, consd. [para. 30].

R. v. Sheets, [1971] S.C.R. 614, consd. [para. 32].

Kipp v. Attorney General of Ontario, [1965] S.C.R. 57, consd. [para. 34].

R. v. Tonner et al. (1971), 3 C.C.C.(2d) 132 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. G. & P. International News Ltd. and Judd (1973), 12 C.C.C.(2d) 169 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

Cheyenne Realty Ltd. v. Thompson, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 87; 1 N.R. 273, consd. [para. 35].

R. v. Holmes (1983), 4 C.C.C.(3d) 440 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Erickson, [1984] 5 W.W.R. 577 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Dennis, Kubin and Frank (1984), 55 A.R. 366; 14 D.L.R.(4th) 205 (N.W.T.C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

Regina and Kripps Pharmacy Ltd. and Kripps, Re (1981), 60 C.C.C.(2d) 332 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Gee (1973), 14 C.C.C.(2d) 538 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Sanver (1973), 6 N.B.R.(2d) 189; 12 C.C.C.(2d) 105 (N.B.C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Vermette (No. 5) (1982), 3 C.C.C.(3d) 36 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

Regina and Beason, Re (1983), 7 C.C.C.(3d) 20 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

Sorrells v. United States (1932), 287 U.S. 435, refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Petersen, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 493; 44 N.R. 92, refd to. [para. 49].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 605 [para. 28].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Cohen, Stanley, Observations on the Re-Emergence of the Doctrine of Abuse of Process (1981), 19 C.R.(3d) 310 [para. 8].

Black's Law Dictionary (5th Ed.) [para. 27].

Counsel:

S. David Frankel, for the appellant;

J.M. Brian Coleman, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on October 31, 1984, before Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer, Wilson and Le Dain, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On September 19, 1985, Dickson, C.J.C., delivered the following judgment for the Supreme Court of Canada.