Supreme Court Judgments

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
Citation: R. v. Reilly, 2020 SCC 27, [2020] 3 S.C.R. 109		Appeal Heard: October 13, 2020 Judgment Rendered: October 13, 2020 Docket: 38785
Between:   Ryan Curtis Reilly Appellant   and   Her Majesty The Queen Respondent   - and -   Director of Public Prosecutions, Attorney General of Ontario, Attorney General of Quebec, Aboriginal Legal Services, Criminal Lawyers’ Association (Ontario), Criminal Trial Lawyers’ Association and Association québécoise des avocats et avocates de la défense Interveners

Coram: Wagner C.J. and Abella, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Côté, Brown, Rowe, Martin and Kasirer JJ.
Unanimous Judgment Read By: (paras. 1 to 2)	Brown J.

 

Note: This document is subject to editorial revision before its reproduction in final form in the Canada Supreme Court Reports.

r. v. reilly

Ryan Curtis Reilly                                                                                          Appellant

v.

Her Majesty The Queen                                                                             Respondent

and

Director of Public Prosecutions,

Attorney General of Ontario,

Attorney General of Quebec,

Aboriginal Legal Services,

Criminal Lawyers’ Association (Ontario),

Criminal Trial Lawyers’ Association and

Association québécoise des avocats et avocates de la défense                  Interveners

 

Indexed as: R. v. Reilly

2020 SCC 27

File No.: 38785.

2020: October 13.

Present: Wagner C.J. and Abella, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Côté, Brown, Rowe, Martin and Kasirer JJ.

on appeal from the court of appeal for alberta

            Charter of Rights  — Remedy — Stay of proceedings — Systemic breach — Accused arrested and detained longer than 24 hours before being taken before justice for bail hearing, contrary to s.  503(1) (a) of Criminal Code  — Crown conceding that accused’s Charter  rights breached by detention —Trial judge finding that accused held for more than 24 hours because of systemic and ongoing problem in province and staying proceedings — Court of Appeal holding that stay inappropriate as individual remedy for systemic Charter  breaches and setting it aside — No basis for Court of Appeal to interfere with trial judge’s decision — Stay restored.

Cases Cited

                    Referred to: R. v. Babos, 2014 SCC 16, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 309.

Statutes and Regulations Cited

Criminal Code , R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 503 .

                    APPEAL from a judgment of the Alberta Court of Appeal (Martin, Slatter and Pentelechuk JJ.A.), 2019 ABCA 212, 88 Alta. L.R. (6th) 17, 376 C.C.C. (3d) 497, [2019] 9 W.W.R. 60, [2019] A.J. No. 676 (QL), 2019 CarswellAlta 1016 (WL Can.), setting aside a stay of proceedings ordered by Cochard Prov. Ct. J., 2018 ABPC 85, 411 C.R.R. (2d) 10, [2018] A.J. No. 482 (QL), 2018 CarswellAlta 783 (WL Can.). Appeal allowed.

 

                    Deborah Hatch and Michael Bates, for the appellant.

 

                    Jason R. Russell, for the respondent.

 

                    Éric Marcoux, for the intervener the Director of Public Prosecutions.

 

                    David Friesen, for the intervener the Attorney General of Ontario.

 

                    Catheryne Bélanger, for the intervener the Attorney General of Quebec.

 

                    Jonathan Rudin, for the intervener Aboriginal Legal Services.

 

                    Boris Bytensky, for the intervener Criminal Lawyers’ Association (Ontario).

 

                    Daniel J. Song, for the intervener Criminal Trial Lawyers’ Association.

 

                    Ariane Gagnon-Rocque, for the intervener Association québécoise des avocats et avocates de la défense.

 

                    The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by

[1]               Brown J. — In these circumstances, which include the trial judge’s finding at para. 63 of her reasons (2018 ABPC 85, 411 C.R.R. (2d) 10) that the breach of s. 503  of the Criminal Code , R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 , was an instance of a systemic and ongoing problem that was not being satisfactorily addressed, we are all of the view that there was no basis for the Court of Appeal to interfere with the trial judge’s exercise of discretion: see R. v. Babos, 2014 SCC 16, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 309, at para. 41. 

[2]               The appeal is allowed and the stay restored.

                    Judgment accordingly.

 

                    Solicitors for the appellant: Deborah Hatch Law Office, Edmonton; Ruttan Bates, Calgary.

 

                    Solicitor for the respondent: Attorney General of Alberta, Edmonton.

 

                    Solicitor for the intervener the Director of Public Prosecutions: Public Prosecution Service of Canada, Ottawa.

 

                    Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney General of Ontario: Attorney General of Ontario, Toronto.

 

                    Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney General of Quebec: Attorney General of Quebec, Québec.

 

                    Solicitor for the intervener Aboriginal Legal Services: Aboriginal Legal Services, Toronto.

 

                    Solicitors for the intervener Criminal Lawyers’ Association (Ontario): Bytensky Shikhman, Toronto.

 

                    Solicitors for the intervener Criminal Trial Lawyers’ Association: Pringle Chivers Sparks Teskey, Vancouver.

 

                    Solicitors for the intervener Association québécoise des avocats et avocates de la défense: Roy & Charbonneau, Québec.