R. v. Pasini
- Citation
- [1992] 1 SCR 1017
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 29 April 1992
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada; Judgment on Appeal
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 29 April 1992
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada; Judgment on Appeal
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Supreme Court agreed with the Quebec Court of Appeal that, in the exceptional circumstances of these cases, the prosecution was entitled to exercise its discretion to declare a nolle prosequi and that there were no grounds to uphold the stays of proceedings ordered by the Superior Court; accordingly the appeals were dismissed and the stays quashed.
Court disposition
Appeals dismissed; stays of proceedings quashed; Crown's appeal allowed.
Orders
- Appeals dismissed.
- Stays of proceedings ordered by Tannenbaum J. quashed.
- Crown's appeal allowed.
02
Material facts
Parties
Claude Laberge
Appellant Counsel: Jean-Claude HébertAndré Dufresne
Appellant Counsel: Sophie BourqueJacques Côté
Appellant Counsel: Bernard LamarchePierre Côté
Appellant Counsel: Bernard LamarcheRobert Lavigne
Appellant Counsel: Danielle RoySerge Joly
Appellant Counsel: Danielle RoyPierre Joly
Appellant Counsel: Danielle RoyMarie‑France Pasini
Appellant Counsel: Sylvain De LagraveBenoît Ratté
Appellant Counsel: Bernard LamarcheGilbert Wasser
Appellant Counsel: Alain RégnierMichel Juneau
Appellant Counsel: Bernard LamarcheGérard Deslongchamps
Appellant Counsel: Bernard LamarcheHer Majesty The Queen
Respondent Counsel: Michel Denis03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada; Judgment on Appeal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether stays of proceedings should be ordered for unreasonable delay under s.11(b) of the Charter
- 02
Whether the prosecution may lawfully exercise its discretion to enter a nolle prosequi to stay proceedings
- 03
Whether the Superior Court judge erred in granting stays of proceedings
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Appellants argued that delays infringed s.11(b) of the Charter and that stays of proceedings were warranted; Superior Court ordered stays by reason of unreasonable delay.
- Respondent
- Crown argued that the prosecution could exercise its discretion to declare a nolle prosequi and stay proceedings and that the stays ordered by the Superior Court were not justified; the Quebec Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Common law / prosecutorial discretion
Prosecution has a common law discretion to enter a nolle prosequi to discontinue proceedings
- 02
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s.11(b)
Section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the right to be tried within a reasonable time and may justify a stay in appropriate circumstances
- 03
Supreme Court of Canada precedent and appellate practice
Appellate courts may review and quash stays of proceedings ordered by trial judges where those stays are not justified by the law or facts
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Supreme Court agreed with the Quebec Court of Appeal that, in the exceptional circumstances of these cases, the prosecution was entitled to exercise its discretion to declare a nolle prosequi and that there were no grounds to uphold the stays of proceedings ordered by the Superior Court; accordingly the appeals were dismissed and the stays quashed.
Court disposition
Appeals dismissed; stays of proceedings quashed; Crown's appeal allowed.
- Appeals dismissed.
- Stays of proceedings ordered by Tannenbaum J. quashed.
- Crown's appeal allowed.
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of Canada · 29 April 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· 29 April 1992
R. v. Pasini Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1992-04-29 Report [1992] 1 SCR 1017 Case number 22356, 22357, 22360, 22361, 22363, 22364, 22666, 22730 Judges La Forest, Gérard V.; L'Heureux-Dubé, Claire; Sopinka, John; Gonthier, Charles Doherty; McLachlin, Beverley; Stevenson, William; Iacobucci, Frank On appeal from Quebec Subjects Constitutional law Notes SCC Case Information: 22356, 22357, 22360, 22361, 22363, 22364, 22666, 22730 Decision Content R. v. Pasini, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 1017 Claude Laberge Appellant v. Her Majesty The Queen Respondent and between André Dufresne Appellant v. Her Majesty The Queen Respondent and between Jacques Côté and Pierre Côté Appellants v. Her Majesty The Queen Respondent and between Robert Lavigne, Serge Joly and Pierre Joly Appellants v. Her Majesty The Queen Respondent and between Marie‑France Pasini and Benoît Ratté Appellants v. Her Majesty The Queen Respondent and between Gilbert Wasser Appellant v. Her Majesty The Queen Respondent and between Michel Juneau Appellant v. Her Majesty The Queen Respondent and between Gérard Deslongchamps Appellant v. Her Majesty The Queen Respondent Indexed as: R. v. Pasini File Nos.: 22356, 22357, 22360, 22361, 22363, 22364, 22666 and 22730. 1992: April 29. Present: La Forest, L'Heureux‑Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, McLachlin, Stevenson and Iacobucci JJ. on appeal from the court of appeal for
quebec Constitutional law ‑‑ Charter of Rights ‑‑ Trial within a reasonable time ‑‑ Stays of proceedings ordered by Superior Court judge quashed. APPEALS from a judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal, [1991] R.J.Q. 669, 63 C.C.C. (3d) 436, 4 C.R. (4th) 188, allowing the Crown's appeal and quashing the stays of proceedings ordered by the Superior Court, R.J.P.Q. 88‑151. Appeals dismissed. Jean‑Claude Hébert, for the appellant Laberge. Sophie Bourque, for the appellant Dufresne. Bernard Lamarche, for the appellants Côté, Juneau, Ratté and Deslongchamps. Danielle Roy, for the appellants Lavigne and Joly. Sylvain De Lagrave, for the appellant Pasini. Alain Régnier, for the appellant Wasser. Michel Denis, for the respondent. //La Forest// English version of the judgment of the Court delivered orally by La Forest J. ‑‑ It will not be necessary to hear from you Mr. Denis. The Court is ready to hand down judgment. The judgment will be pronounced by Mr. Justice Gonthier. Gonthier J. -- These are appeals as of right from a decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal quashing stays of proceedings on grounds of unreasonable delay ordered by Tannenbaum J. We are all in agreement with the Court of Appeal's conclusion that in the exceptional circumstances of this case it was open to the prosecution to exercise its discretion to declare a stay of proceedings by way of nolle prosequi and that there
were no grounds for the stay of proceedings ordered by Tannenbaum J. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. Judgment accordingly. Solicitors for the appellants Laberge and Dufresne: Hébert, Bourque, Montréal. Solicitors for the appellants Côté, Ratté and Juneau: Barrière, Côté, Girard, Lamarche, Pinard & Rumanek, Montréal. Solicitor for the appellants Lavigne and Joly: Danielle Roy, Montréal. Solicitor for the appellant Pasini: Sylvain De Lagrave, Montréal. Solicitor for the appellant Wasser: Alain Régnier, Montréal. Solicitors for the appellant Deslongchamps: Melançon, Bertrand & Associés, Laval. Solicitor for the respondent: Michel Denis, Montréal.
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.