R. v. Keyowski

R. v. Keyowski

A stay should be granted only in the clearest of cases where proceedings are oppressive or vexatious or violate principles of fundamental justice; prosecutorial misconduct is one relevant factor but is not per se required to establish abuse of process, and on the facts the appellant failed to meet the high threshold so the Court allowed the Crown to proceed to a new trial.

Citation
[1988] 1 SCR 657
Parties
Appellant/accused: Glorian Keyowski; Respondent/crown: Her Majesty The Queen
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 April 1988
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal as of Right From Saskatchewan Court of Appeal Concerning Stay of Proceedings and Entitlement to a Third Trial
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Prosecutorial Misconduct, Section 7 Charter, Stay of Proceedings, Retrial
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Abuse of Process Prosecutorial Misconduct Section 7 Charter Stay of Proceedings Retrial

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Glorian Keyowski

Appellant/accused

Her Majesty The Queen

Respondent/crown

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal as of Right From Saskatchewan Court of Appeal Concerning Stay of Proceedings and Entitlement to a Third Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether successive mistrials per se constitute an abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether prosecutorial misconduct is a required element to establish abuse of process
  3. 3 Whether a third trial would violate s.7 of the Charter and principles of fundamental justice

Ratio Decidendi

A stay should be granted only in the clearest of cases where proceedings are oppressive or vexatious or violate principles of fundamental justice; prosecutorial misconduct is one relevant factor but is not per se required to establish abuse of process, and on the facts the appellant failed to meet the high threshold so the Court allowed the Crown to proceed to a new trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Stay of proceedings set aside
  • New trial ordered