|
Charter - s.24(1) Remedies (3). R. v. Tavares [criminal stay]
In R. v. Tavares (Ont CA, 2025) the Ontario Court of Appeal considers the rare Charter s.24(1) criminal 'stay' remedy:[4] A stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter, a drastic remedy in criminal law, is warranted only in the “clearest of cases”: R. v. Babos, 2014 SCC 16, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 309, at paras. 30-31. State conduct justifies a stay of proceedings in only two situations: 1) when it compromises trial fairness; or 2) when it risks undermining the integrity of the judicial process. This matter was decided under the trial fairness prong.
[5] There are three requirements that must be considered:1) there must be prejudice to the accused’s right to a fair trial interest or to the integrity of the justice system that “will be manifested, perpetuated or aggravated through the conduct of the trial, or by its outcome” (Babos, at para. 32);
2) there must be no alternative remedy capable of redressing the prejudice (Babos, at para. 32); and
3) where there is still uncertainty over whether a stay of proceedings 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” (Babos, at para. 32). [6] This court has repeatedly said that this type of motion should not be ruled on at the outset of trial, except where the remedy sought is manifest at the outset of the proceedings: R. v. Bero (2000), 2000 CanLII 16956 (ON CA), 151 C.C.C. (3d) 545 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 18. There is good reason for this general rule, which is clear on the face of this record.
|
