R. v. Kearney
- Citation
- [1992] 3 SCR 807
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 1 December 1992
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal (charter) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the New Brunswick Court of Appeal; Judgment on Appeal
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 1 December 1992
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal (charter) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the New Brunswick Court of Appeal; Judgment on Appeal
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
Applying R. v. Vermette, the Court found no Charter violation nor abuse of process on the facts; therefore the stay was unjustified and a new trial must be ordered.
Court disposition
Appeal allowed; judgments below set aside; new trial ordered.
Orders
- Appeal allowed
- Judgments below set aside
- New trial ordered
02
Material facts
Parties
Her Majesty The Queen
Appellant Counsel: Michael F. BrownWilliam J. Kearney
Respondent Counsel: C. David Hughes, Q.C.The Attorney General of Canada
Intervener Counsel: Bruce A. MacFarlane, Q.C.; Nancy L. Irving03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal (charter) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the New Brunswick Court of Appeal; Judgment on Appeal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the stay of proceedings should be upheld
- 02
Whether the accused's Charter rights were violated
- 03
Whether there was an abuse of process
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The Crown argued that the stay was wrongly granted, that there was no violation of the respondent's Charter rights nor any abuse of process, and that under R. v. Vermette the appropriate remedy was a new trial.
- Respondent
- The respondent argued that proceedings should be stayed due to violations of his Charter rights and abuse of process, relying on the lower court's stay.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
R. v. Vermette, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 985
Framework for when a stay of proceedings is appropriate and how to assess abuse of process and Charter breaches
- 02
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Protections against abuse of process and remedies under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
Applying R. v. Vermette, the Court found no Charter violation nor abuse of process on the facts; therefore the stay was unjustified and a new trial must be ordered.
Court disposition
Appeal allowed; judgments below set aside; new trial ordered.
- Appeal allowed
- Judgments below set aside
- New trial ordered
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of Canada · 1 December 1992
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· 1 December 1992
R. v. Kearney Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1992-12-01 Report [1992] 3 SCR 807 Case number 22916 Judges Lamer, Antonio; La Forest, Gérard V.; L'Heureux-Dubé, Claire; Sopinka, John; Gonthier, Charles Doherty; McLachlin, Beverley; Iacobucci, Frank On appeal from New Brunswick Subjects Constitutional law Notes SCC Case Information: 22916 Decision Content R. v. Kearney, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 807 Her Majesty The Queen Appellant v. William J. Kearney Respondent and The Attorney General of Canada Intervener Indexed as: R. v. Kearney File No.: 22916. 1992: December 1. Present: Lamer C.J. and La Forest, L'Heureux‑Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, McLachlin and Iacobucci JJ. on appeal from the court of appeal for new brunswick Constitutional law ‑‑ Charter of Rights ‑‑ Abuse of process ‑‑ Accused granted stay of proceedings following his dismissal ‑‑ No violation of accused's rights under Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or abuse of process ‑‑ Accused ordered to stand trial. Cases Cited Applied: R. v. Vermette, [1988] 1 S.C.R.
985. APPEAL from a judgment of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal (1992), 122 N.B.R. (2d) 282, 306 A.P.R. 282, 70 C.C.C. (3d) 507, 13 C.R. (4th) 41, 40 C.C.E.L. 56, dismissing the Crown's appeal from a stay of proceedings granted by the Court of Queen's Bench (1991), 118 N.B.R. (2d) 432, 296 A.P.R. 432, 40 C.C.E.L.
44. Appeal allowed. Michael F. Brown, for the appellant. C. David Hughes, Q.C., for the respondent. Bruce A. MacFarlane, Q.C., and Nancy L. Irving, for the intervener. //Lamer C.J.// The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by Lamer C.J. ‑‑ We are all of the view that this appeal should be allowed and the respondent be sent back to stand trial. R. v. Vermette, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 985, governs the appeal. On the facts of this case, we find that there has been no violation of the respondent's Charter rights nor has there been an abuse of process. The appeal is allowed, the judgments below are set aside and a new trial is ordered. Judgment accordingly. Solicitor for the appellant: The Attorney General for Ontario, Toronto. Solicitors for the respondent: Hughes, Campbell, Fredericton. Solicitor for the intervener: The Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa.
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.