R. v. Hunt
- Citation
- 2017 SCC 25
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 27 April 2017
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal (charter) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 27 April 2017
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal (charter) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
A majority allowed the Crown's appeal: the trial judge erred in concluding that pre-charge delay amounted to a deprivation of security of the person or an abuse of process requiring a stay; accordingly the stay of proceedings was not warranted and was set aside (majority reasons adopting Hoegg J.A.).
Court disposition
Appeal allowed; stay of proceedings set aside.
Orders
- Appeal allowed
- Stay of proceedings set aside
02
Material facts
Parties
Her Majesty The Queen
Appellant Counsel: Lloyd M. StricklandHubert Hunt
Respondent Counsel: Derek HoganWilliam Parsons
Respondent Counsel: Randolph J. Piercey, Q.C.Gary Hillyard
Respondent Counsel: Jonathan E. NoonanJohn King
Respondent Counsel: John Brooks, Q.C.Amounts and remedies
- Number of Respondents: 4
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal (charter) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether pre-charge delay constituted an abuse of process
- 02
Whether pre-charge delay deprived the accused of their Charter s.7 right to security of the person
- 03
Whether a stay of proceedings is an appropriate remedy in the circumstances
- 04
Whether the trial judge erred in granting a stay and whether the Court of Appeal erred in affirming it
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The Crown submitted the trial judge erred in granting a stay; the pre-charge delay did not deprive the accused of their s.7 security of the person nor constitute abuse of process warranting the extraordinary remedy of a stay.
- Respondent
- The accused argued that pre-charge delay amounted to an abuse of process and violated their constitutional right to security of the person, and that a stay of proceedings was the appropriate remedy; the trial judge granted a stay and the majority of the Court of Appeal affirmed.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Constitution Act, 1982, s.7
Section 7 of the Charter protects the right to security of the person.
- 02
Supreme Court jurisprudence on remedies for Charter breaches
A stay of proceedings is an extraordinary remedy reserved for cases of serious abuse of process or where trial would be unfair to the point of rendering proceedings oppressive.
- 03
Principles developed in appellate and trial authority on pre-charge delay and abuse of process
Pre-charge delay can ground a remedy only where it causes prejudice or constitutes an abuse of the process of the court.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
A majority allowed the Crown's appeal: the trial judge erred in concluding that pre-charge delay amounted to a deprivation of security of the person or an abuse of process requiring a stay; accordingly the stay of proceedings was not warranted and was set aside (majority reasons adopting Hoegg J.A.).
Obiter and limits
- Justice Côté dissented and would have dismissed the appeal, upholding the stay for reasons similar to the Court of Appeal majority.
- The Court emphasized that findings of constitutional deprivation and the granting of a stay require careful application of established remedial principles and are not to be made lightly.
Court disposition
Appeal allowed; stay of proceedings set aside.
- Appeal allowed
- Stay of proceedings set aside
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of Canada · 27 April 2017
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Supreme Court of Canada
Judgment· 27 April 2017
R. v. Hunt Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 2017-04-27 Neutral citation 2017 SCC 25 Report [2017] 1 SCR 476 Case number 37314 Judges Abella, Rosalie Silberman; Moldaver, Michael J.; Karakatsanis, Andromache; Wagner, Richard; Gascon, Clément; Côté, Suzanne; Brown, Russell On appeal from Newfoundland and Labrador Notes SCC Case Information: 37314 Decision Content
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA Citation: R. v. Hunt, 2017 SCC 25, [2017] 1 S.C.R. 476 Appeal heard: April 25, 2017 Judgment rendered: April 25, 2017 Docket: 37314 Between: Her Majesty The Queen Appellant and Hubert Hunt, William Parsons, Gary Hillyard and John King Respondents Coram: Abella, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Wagner, Gascon, Côté and Brown JJ. Reasons for Judgment: (paras. 1 and 2) Abella J. (Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Wagner, Gascon, Côté and Brown JJ. concurring) R. v. Hunt, 2017 SCC 25, [2017] 1 S.C.R. 476 Her Majesty The Queen Appellant v. Hubert Hunt, William Parsons, Gary Hillyard and John King Respondents Indexed as: R. v. Hunt 2017 SCC 25 File No.: 37314. 2017: April 25. Present: Abella, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Wagner, Gascon, Côté and Brown JJ. on appeal from the court of appeal for newfoundland and labrador Constitutional law — Charter of Rights — Remedy — Stay of proceedings — Accused jointly charged with fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud, falsifying books and documents, and circulating false prospectus — Accused alleging abuse of process due to pre-charge delay in violation of their constitutional right to security of person — Trial judge granting stay of proceedings — Majority of Court of Appeal finding no basis on which to conclude that trial judge erred in determining that stay of proceedings was appropriate remedy — Dissenting judge finding that accused not deprived
of constitutional right to security of person and that stay of proceedings should not have been granted — Stay of proceedings not warranted. APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Appeal for Newfoundland and Labrador (Welsh, Rowe and Hoegg JJ.A.), 2016 NLCA 61, 33 C.R. (7th) 321, [2016] N.J. No. 372 (QL), 3016 CarswellNfld 425 (WL Can.), affirming a decision of Thompson J., 2015 NLTD(G) 15, 334 C.R.R. (2d) 236, 361 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 193, 1122 A.P.R. 193, [2015] N.J. No. 39 (QL), 2015 CarswellNfld 27 (WL Can.). Appeal allowed, Côté J. dissenting. Lloyd M. Strickland, for the appellant. Derek Hogan, for the respondent Hubert Hunt. Randolph J. Piercey, Q.C., for the respondent William Parsons. Jonathan E. Noonan, for the respondent Gary Hillyard. John Brooks, Q.C., for the respondent John King. The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by [1] Abella J. — A majority of this Court is of the view that the appeal should be allowed substantially for the reasons of Hoegg J.A. [2] Justice Côté would dismiss the appeal substantially for the reasons of the majority in the Court of Appeal. Judgment accordingly. Solicitor for the appellant: Special Prosecutions Office, St. John’s. Solicitor for the respondent Hubert Hunt: Newfoundland and Labrador Legal Aid Commission, St. John’s. Solicitors for the respondent William Parsons: Noonan Piercey, St. John’s. Solicitors for the respondent Gary Hillyard: Noonan Piercey, St. John’s. Solicitor for the respondent John Brooks: John Brooks Law Office, St. John’s.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.