The Trial Process

AuthorSteve Coughlan
Pages483-560
483
CHAPTER 11
THE TRIAL PROCESS
A. INTRODUCTION
This chapter focuses on the actual process of a trial. That discussion
must begin at the pre-trial stage, with reference to the charging docu-
ments that bring a per son to court and set out the case to be met at tr ial.
From there we move to a discussion of the pleas an accused can enter,
and the various stages of a trial, including opening statements, exam-
ination of witnesses, closing arguments, and charging of the jury. We
will then consider the rules surrounding jury deliberations and finally
conclude with a discussion of the various powers a judge can exercise
during the trial.
B. THE CHARGE DOCUMENT
1) Informations, Indictments, and Direct Indictments
When a person is put on trial for an offence, there must be some par-
ticular document specifying the charge against that person. Initially,
charges are laid by means of an information,1 which was discussed in
Chapter 6. When an accused is tried by a provincial court judge, that
information is the relevant document, whereas when the accused is
1 Criminal Code, ss 504 & 505.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
484
tried in a superior court, a different document an indictment is
prepared.2 Conceptually, the transition from provincial court to
superior court is by means of a preliminary inquiry in the provincial
court, following which the accused would (or on rare occasions would
not) proceed to trial in the superior court: see Chapter 9. The Code pro-
visions have therefore been str uctured around the assumption that the
indictment is prepared following the preliminary inquiry, that a pre-
liminary inquiry is routinely held, and that that preliminary inquiry
considers the sufficiency of the entire case against the accused and
decides whether the accused should stand trial or not.
For that reason the Code provides, for example, that the indictment
can include not only the charge on which the person was ordered to
stand trial, but also any charge founded on the facts disclosed at the
preliminary inquiry.3 That rule — that an indictment can be preferred
on a charge where the facts making it out are disclosed at the prelim-
inary inquiry does not allow a prosecutor to prefer an indictment
on the very charge for which the accused is discharged. Rather, that
power is intended to allow the preferment of charges for other offences
that are disclosed at the preliminary inquiry.4 Nonetheless, the Crown
can lay an indictment concerning the offence for which an accused has
been discharged: section 577 of the Criminal Code, discussed below,
permits exactly that, although it requires the personal consent in writ-
ing of the attorney general or deputy attorney general.5
In fact, however, the assumption that a prelimin ary inquiry is a rela-
tively wide-ranging inquiry into all the facts related to the case has not
been accurate for some time. Amendments to the Code in 2004 meant
that preliminary inquiries were limited to the specific issues about
which the parties (most likely the accused) requested evidence be led.
Amendments in 2019 gave the judge the ability to unilaterally limit the
inquiry to particular issues.6 Both of those rules limit the likely applic-
2 Section 566(1). Note that the power in sect ion 577 to proceed by di rect indict-
ment means th at there could be occasions when a n indictment is the first
charge document prepared.
3 Section 574.
4 R v Tapaquon, [1993] 4 SCR 535.
5 See the discu ssion in Chapter 3, Section B(1)(a) concerning c onsent of the
attorney general.
6 See s 537(1.01), added by Bill C-75, An Act to amend the Criminal Co de, the Youth
Criminal Justice Act and o ther Acts and to make conseque ntial amendment s to other
Acts, Royal Assent Ju ne 21, 2019. That Bill also limited pre liminary inqui ries
to offences puni shable by fourteen years’ impri sonment or more, which means
that they w ill be much less common to begin w ith.
The Trial Proces s485
ability of a rule permitting an indictment based on the facts disclosed,
because not very many “extraneous” facts are likely to be disclosed.
Further, the primary rule around indictments in section 574(1)
talks about what the prosecutor can do in relation to the charges and
evidence at the preliminary inquiry, which reflects an assumption that
there normally will be such a proceeding. That assumption too is no
longer correct. The amendments in 2004 made preliminary inquiries
only available on request (typically of the accused). The amendments in
2019 limited preliminary inquiries to offences punishable by fourteen
years or more imprisonment, which is a small subset of all indictable
offences. Accordingly there is a need for a separate power to prefer indict-
ments, which is found in section 574(1.1): when no preliminary inquiry
was requested or was available, the prosecutor can prefer an indictment
in respect of a charge set out in an information or informations.
In a sense, given the current limited availability of preliminary
inquiries, th is power in section 574(1.1) to prefer an indictment without
a preliminary inquiry should be regarded as the norm. At one point,
however, to do so was seen as a discretionar y and unusual step, provided
for in section 577. That prosecutorial power continues to play a relevant
role, because it allows the Crown in some circ umstances to override the
accused’s choice or the preliminary inquiry justice’s decision.
Section 577 allows for “direct indictments,” which is a special power
that in effect overrides procedures that the accused would otherwise
be entitled to benefit from; that is, it permits the prosecutor to prefer
an indictment if the preliminary inquiry has been commenced but not
concluded,7 or even if the accused wa s discharged following the prelim-
inary inquiry. This power also applies where a committal for trial has
been quashed,8 or where a trial judge has specifically declined to order
an accused to stand trial on a charge not laid but disclosed in the evi-
dence at the preliminary inquiry.9 The section also says that the power
can be used “even if the accused has not been given the opportunity
to request a preliminar y inquiry,” but that language pre-dates the 2019
amendments which removed the right to request a preli minary inquiry
from the accused for the great majority of offences: the interplay
between that old wording and the new ru le might need to be sorted out.
This is particularly so because, since a direct indictment normally over-
rides what would otherwise be the accused’s entitlements, it can only
7 Courts had a lready held that the power wa s available in this situ ation, but the
Code has si nce been amended to explicit ly state it. See R v Stewart (No 2) (1977),
35 CCC (2d) 281 (Ont CA).
8 R v Charlie (1998), 126 CCC (3d) 513 (BCCA).
9 R v McKibbon, [1984] 1 SCR 131.

To continue reading

Request your trial

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT