|
|
\+\+\+Ü Ü Ô and a new trial ordered. At issue here is whether a series of trials could à Ãper seÄ Ä constitute an abuse of process or whether it is necessary for the accused to show prosecutorial misconduct. Ð Ð Ð ÐÁ œ œ Áà ÃHeldÄ Ä: The appeal should be dismissed. Ð Ð Ð ÐÁ œ œ ÁA stay of proceedings to remedy an abuse of process is available where the proceedings are "oppressive or vexatious", but such power can be exercised only in the "clearest of cases". To define "oppressive" as requiring misconduct or an improper motive would unduly restrict the operation of the doctrine of abuse of process. Prosecutorial misconduct and improper motivation, if present, are but two of many factors to be taken into account when a court is called upon to consider whether or not in a particular case the Crown's exercise of its discretion to re-lay the indictment amounts to an abuse of process. Ð Ð Ð ÐÁ œ œ ÁThe administration of justice would be best served in this case by allowing the Crown to proceed with the new trial. The appellant had not demonstrated this to be one of those "clearest of cases" which would justify a stay. Ð Ð Ð Ðà ÃCases CitedÄ Ä Ð Ð Ð ÐÁ œ œ Áà ÃReferred to:Ä Ä Ã ÃR. v. JewittÄ Ä, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 128; à ÃR. v. YoungÄ Ä (1984), 40 C.R. (3d) 289. Ð Ð Ô Ø' ˆ,î)î)J J ԌРÐà ÃStatutes and Regulation CitedÄ Ä Ð Ð Ð Ð , „ œ ø Ü 8 ô ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ , „ Ü Ú œ ø Ü 8 ô ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ Ü Ü Ð ÐРРþ Ú Ú ÂÁ€Ü Ü Áà ÃCanadian Charter of Rights and FreedomsÄ Ä, s. 7.ÆÐ Ú Æ Ð Ð , „ Ü Ú œ ø Ü 8 ô ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ , „ œ ø Ü 8 ô ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ Ü Ü Ð ÐÐ Ð Ð ÐÁ œ œ ÁAPPEAL from a judgment of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal (1986), 49 Sask. R. 64, [1986] 5 W.W.R. 150, allowing an appeal from a judgment of McIntyre J. (1986), 48 Sask. R. 4, [1986] 4 W.W.R. 140, and ordering a new trial. Appeal dismissed. Ð Ð Ð ÐÁ œ œ Áà ÃE. R. GritzfeldÄ Ä, à ÃQ.C.Ä Ä, for the appellant. Ð Ð Á œ œ Áà ÃGraeme G. MitchellÄ Ä, for the respondent. Á œ œ ÁThe judgment of the Court was delivered by Ð Ðà ÃÄ Ä Ð ÐÑ # o ô \ PŽ ÂC ’…X P# ÑÁ€„ „ ÁØ € 1. ØÁ œ œ ÁÁ ø ø Áà ÃWilson J.Ä Ä--The issue in this appeal is whether the appellant Keyowski should stand trial for a third time on a charge of criminal negligence causing death. His first two trials ended with the jury failing to agree on a verdict. A third
|
