R. v. Douglas; R. v. Myers, [1993] 1 SCR 893

R. v. Douglas; R. v. Myers, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 893

Eric Douglas                                                                                       Appellant

v.

Her Majesty The Queen                                                                   Respondent

and between

Dwight Myers              Appellant

v.

Her Majesty The Queen                                                                   Respondent

Indexed as:  R. v. Douglas; R. v. Myers

File Nos.:  22849, 22846.

1993:  March 23.

Present:  Lamer C.J. and L'Heureux‑Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.

on appeal from the court of appeal for ontario

                   Constitutional law ‑‑ Charter of Rights  ‑‑ Fundamental justice ‑‑ Remedy ‑‑ Trial judge staying proceedings on narcotics charges ‑‑ Issue of whether s. 7  of Charter  was violated and of appropriate remedy not properly dealt with by trial judge ‑‑ Quashing of stays upheld ‑‑ Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 7 .

Statutes and Regulations Cited

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms , s. 7 .

                   APPEAL from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal (1991), 5 O.R. (3d) 29, allowing the Crown's appeal from a stay of proceedings ordered by Judge Hogg on March 1, 1991, on a charge against the appellant Douglas of trafficking in a narcotic.  Appeal dismissed.

                   APPEAL from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal, No. 228/91, September 20, 1991, allowing the Crown's appeal from a stay of proceedings ordered by Judge Hogg on February 6, 1991, on a charge against the appellant Myers of trafficking in a narcotic.  Appeal dismissed.

                   Russell Silverstein, for the appellant Douglas.

                   Bruce Duncan, for the appellant Myers.

                   Ivan S. Bloom, Q.C., for the respondent.

//Lamer C.J.//

                   The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by

                   Lamer C.J. ‑‑ The issue as to whether there was a s. 7 violation and as regards the appropriate remedy was not properly dealt with by the trial judge.  The appeals are dismissed and a new trial is ordered.  The accused may, if so advised, renew their applications for a stay.

                   Judgment accordingly.

                   Solicitors for the appellant Douglas:  Pinkofsky, Lockyer, Kwinter, Toronto.

                   Solicitors for the appellant Myers:  Duncan, Fava & Schermbrucker, Toronto.

                   Solicitor for the respondent:  John C. Tait, Ottawa.