Canada Judgment

Supreme Court of Canada

Reference re Milgaard (Can.)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

Because the Court's conclusions on the Reference, the federal Attorney General's order for a new trial and the provincial Attorney General's stay changed the justice context, the interests of justice no longer required summary treatment of Mr. Wilson's alleged misconduct under oath; the Court therefore stayed its contempt proceedings and left the question of prosecution to the appropriate prosecutorial authorities.

Court disposition

Contempt proceedings against Ronald Wilson stayed.

Orders

  • Stay of contempt proceedings against Ronald Wilson
  • Decision whether to prosecute left to appropriate prosecutorial authorities

02

Material facts

Parties

Ronald Wilson

Citizen Cited for Contempt/witness Counsel: Kenneth R. Watson

Governor in Council

Referrer of the Reference

Attorney General of Canada

Party (ordered New Trial)

Attorney General for Saskatchewan

Party (entered Stay of Proceedings)

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Reference Pursuant to S.53 Supreme Court Act / Citation for Contempt in the Course of a Reference; Contempt Proceedings Stayed

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The citation alleged that Mr. Wilson gave testimony under oath amounting to contempt/perjury and should be dealt with summarily by the Court.
Respondent
Given the Court's conclusions on the Reference, the order for a new trial by the federal Attorney General and the provincial Attorney General's stay of proceedings, the interests of justice do not require summary disposition; the matter should be left to prosecutorial authorities to decide whether to proceed.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Supreme Court of Canada (this judgment)

    Interests of justice can render summary contempt proceedings inappropriate.

  2. 02

    Supreme Court of Canada; established criminal justice practice

    Prosecutorial discretion governs the decision whether to initiate criminal proceedings, including prosecution for perjury or contempt.

  3. 03

    Supreme Court of Canada (this judgment)

    A stay of proceedings is an appropriate remedy where the interests of justice so require.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

Because the Court's conclusions on the Reference, the federal Attorney General's order for a new trial and the provincial Attorney General's stay changed the justice context, the interests of justice no longer required summary treatment of Mr. Wilson's alleged misconduct under oath; the Court therefore stayed its contempt proceedings and left the question of prosecution to the appropriate prosecutorial authorities.

Obiter and limits

  • The Attorney General of Canada ordered a new trial; the Attorney General for Saskatchewan entered a stay of proceedings, facts which the Court noted but which did not itself decide beyond their effect on the contempt citation.
  • The Court emphasized deference to prosecutorial authorities in determining whether to pursue criminal charges arising from sworn testimony in a Reference.

Court disposition

Contempt proceedings against Ronald Wilson stayed.

  • Stay of contempt proceedings against Ronald Wilson
  • Decision whether to prosecute left to appropriate prosecutorial authorities

Source and reliance status

Supreme Court of Canada · 4 June 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.

Source document

Supreme Court of Canada

Judgment· 4 June 1992

[1992] 1 SCR 875

Reference re Milgaard (Can.) Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1992-06-04 Report [1992] 1 SCR 875 Case number 22732 Judges Lamer, Antonio; Sopinka, John; Cory, Peter deCarteret; McLachlin, Beverley; Iacobucci, Frank On appeal from Saskatchewan Subjects Courts Notes SCC Case Information: 22732 Decision Content Reference re Milgaard (Can.), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 875 IN THE MATTER OF section 53 of the Supreme Court Act , R.S.C., 1985, c. S‑26 IN THE MATTER OF a Reference by the Governor in Council concerning whether the conviction of David Milgaard in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, on January 31, 1970 for the murder of Gail Miller on January 31, 1969 constitutes a miscarriage of justice, and what remedial action, if any, is advisable, as set out in Order in Council P.C. 1991‑2376, dated the 28th day of November, 1991 Indexed as: Reference re Milgaard (Can.) File No.: 22732. 1992: February 3; 1992: June 4. Present: Lamer C.J. and Sopinka, Cory, McLachlin and Iacobucci JJ. citation for contempt Contempt of court ‑‑ Milgaard Reference ‑‑ Witness -- Perjury -- Contempt proceedings stayed. CITATION of Ronald Wilson for contempt in Reference re Milgaard (Can.), [1992] 1 S.C.R.

000. Contempt proceedings stayed. Kenneth R. Watson, for Ronald Wilson. //The Court// The following is the judgment delivered by The Court ‑‑ Given Mr. Ronald Wilson's testimony in the Milgaard Reference following the citation for contempt, our conclusions as regards this Reference, the order of the Attorney General of Canada for a new trial, and the Attorney General for Saskatchewan's decision to enter a stay of proceedings, we are all of the view that the interests of justice no longer require that Mr. Wilson's conduct under oath be dealt with summarily. We therefore leave to the appropriate prosecutorial authorities the decision whether to proceed in this matter, and we enter a stay of our contempt proceedings. Judgment accordingly. Solicitor for Ronald Wilson: Kenneth R. Watson, Nakusp, B.C.

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Supreme Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-26, s. 53

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

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.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.