R. v. Roy
- Citation
- 2026 ONCA 6
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Decision
- 8 January 2026
- Posture
- Criminal / Appeal
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Decision
- 8 January 2026
- Posture
- Criminal / Appeal
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The trial judge did not misapprehend the evidence and his credibility findings were entitled to deference; although the officer used excessive force violating s.7, the circumstances did not require a stay and the s.24(1) remedy of a six-month sentence reduction was appropriate; appeal dismissed.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Convictions upheld
- Six-month sentence reduction affirmed as the appropriate s.24(1) remedy
02
Material facts
Parties
His Majesty the King
Respondent Counsel: Samuel G. WalkerMarcus Roy
Appellant Counsel: Simon KimAmounts and remedies
- Sentence Reduction Months: 6
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal / Appeal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the trial judge erred in failing to stay proceedings based on excessive force by police during arrest
- 02
Whether the trial judge misapprehended the evidence and made palpable and overriding errors on credibility
- 03
Whether the remedial reduction in sentence under s.24(1) of the Charter was an appropriate remedy
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellant submitted the trial judge misapprehended evidence and that the officer's use of excessive force warranted a stay of proceedings or other terminating remedy.
- Respondent
- The Crown submitted the trial judge properly assessed witness testimony and video evidence, that credibility findings are entitled to deference, and that a s.24(1) remedy short of termination (six-month sentence reduction) was appropriate given the societal interest in adjudicating serious charges.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms s.24(1)
Section 24(1) of the Charter grants broad remedial authority and permits proportional remedies rather than automatic termination
- 02
R. v. O'Connor, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 411 para.69
Remedies under s.24(1) should be tailored; courts may reduce sentences rather than stay proceedings where appropriate (the judge's role is a 'scalpel rather than an axe')
- 03
Common law appellate review standards
Appellate courts must defer to trial judges on findings of credibility and fact unless there is a palpable and overriding error
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The trial judge did not misapprehend the evidence and his credibility findings were entitled to deference; although the officer used excessive force violating s.7, the circumstances did not require a stay and the s.24(1) remedy of a six-month sentence reduction was appropriate; appeal dismissed.
Obiter and limits
- The trial judge was entitled to find the testimonial dishonesty of officer Powell while not concluding other officers deliberately misled the court.
- Section 24(1) is characterized as a tool for tailored remedies rather than automatic termination of proceedings.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed
- Appeal dismissed
- Convictions upheld
- Six-month sentence reduction affirmed as the appropriate s.24(1) remedy
Source and reliance status
Court of Appeal for Ontario · 8 January 2026
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.
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Judgment· 8 January 2026
R. v. Roy Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2026-01-08 Neutral citation 2026 ONCA 6 Docket numbers COA-24-CR-0972 Judges George, Jonathon C.; Favreau, Lise G.; Pomerance, Renee M. Subject Criminal Decision Content
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: R. v. Roy, 2026 ONCA 6 DATE: 20260108 DOCKET: COA-24-CR-0972 George, Favreau and Pomerance JJ.A.
BETWEEN His Majesty the King Respondent and Marcus Roy Appellant Simon Kim, for the appellant Samuel G. Walker, for the respondent Heard and rendered orally: November 21, 2025 On appeal from the conviction entered by Justice Donohue of the Superior Court of Justice, on April 2, 2024.
REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The appellant appeals from convictions for various offences flowing from the robbery of a convenience store. The central issue is whether the trial judge erred in failing to stay the proceedings based on the use of excessive force by an officer during the appellant’s arrest. [2] The appellant argues that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence. We do not agree. The trial judge expressly considered the testimony of the police witnesses, and the extent to which it was contradicted by the video of the arrest. The trial judge was alive to the apparent testimonial dishonesty of officer Powell, who was responsible for the excessive force, but did not find the other officers to have deliberately misled the court. [3] These findings were within the purview of the trial judge and are entitled to deference. We do not see any misapprehension of evidence or palpable and overriding error. [4] Nor do we see error in the trial judge’s choice of remedy, that being a sentence reduction of six months duration. Section 24 (1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms confers a broad sphere of remedial authority. As it was put in R. v. O’Connor, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 411, at para. 69, it provides judges with a scalpel rather than an axe. While the use of force in this case was excessive and violated the appellants rights under s. 7 of the Charter, there was a strong societal interest in seeing these serious charges tried on the merits. It was open to the trial judge to find that this was not one of the clearest of cases commanding a judicial termination of the prosecution. [5] For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed. “J. George J.A.” “L. Favreau J.A.” “R. Pomerance J.A.”
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.