R. v. Reilly

R. v. Reilly Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 2020-10-13 Neutral citation 2020 SCC 27 Case number 38785 Judges Wagner, Richard; Abella, Rosalie Silberman; Moldaver, Michael J.; Karakatsanis, Andromache; Côté, Suzanne; Brown, Russell; Rowe, Malcolm; Martin, Sheilah; Kasirer, Nicholas On appeal from Alberta Notes SCC Case Information Decision Content

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA Citation: R. v. Reilly, 2020 SCC 27 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.