Supreme Court Judgments

Decision Information

Decision Content

R. v. Bramwell, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1126


Henry Lewis Bramwell                                                                      Appellant




Her Majesty The Queen                                                                   Respondent


Indexed as:  R. v. Bramwell


File No.:  25211.


1996:  November 29.


Present:  Lamer C.J. and Sopinka,  McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.


on appeal from the court of appeal for british columbia


                   Criminal law ‑‑ Stay of proceedings ‑‑ Trial judge erring in granting stay of proceedings ‑‑ Court of Appeal justified in reviewing and reversing trial judge’s exercise of discretion.


                   APPEAL from a judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal (1996),  72 B.C.A.C. 125, 119 W.A.C. 125, 106 C.C.C. (3d) 365, allowing the Crown’s appeal from a stay of proceedings and ordering a new trial.  Appeal dismissed.


                   James W. Millar, for the appellant.


                   Bruce Johnstone, for the respondent.


\\Sopinka J.\\


                   The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by


1                 Sopinka J.  ‑‑ This appeal is here as of right.  We agree with the Court of Appeal that this was not one of the clearest cases in which a stay of proceedings was warranted.  In our opinion, the Court of Appeal was justified in reviewing and reversing the trial judge’s exercise of his discretion by reason of the trial judge’s failure to take into account the absence on the part of the appellant of timely objection to non‑disclosure and by reason of the trial judge’s error in finding that a stay was the only appropriate remedy.  The appeal is dismissed.


                   Judgment accordingly.


                   Solicitor for the appellant:  James W. Millar Law Corp., Vancouver.


                   Solicitor for the respondent:  The Ministry of the Attorney General, Vancouver.

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.