R v Breeze

R. v. Breeze

[1993] O.J. No. 850
Ontario Court of Justice - Provincial Division — Zabel Prov. Div. J. | March 4, 1993

Background

Bonnie Breeze was charged with two counts of theft under $1,000 from La Cache in Hamilton — one on January 15, 1992, and another on February 17, 1992. The information was sworn on November 4, 1992, and that same day Breeze showed up for trial ready to defend herself.

But the Crown had a problem: they'd forgotten to provide the required notice under section 30(7) of the Canada Evidence Act to introduce business records as evidence. Without those records, their case would collapse. Rather than ask the judge for leave to introduce the documents or request an adjournment, the Crown made a calculated decision. They delayed calling the case, had the police officer prepare a new summons with the proper notice, then withdrew the charges and immediately served Breeze with the new summons as she left the courtroom.

Issues

1. Whether the Crown's conduct in withdrawing and re-laying identical charges to avoid a potential adverse ruling constituted an abuse of process
2. Whether this conduct violated Breeze's Charter rights under section 7

The Abuse of Process

Judge Zabel was not impressed. The court found that while the Crown has the right to withdraw charges, that right is not unlimited when the purpose is to circumvent an adverse judicial ruling rather than to discontinue proceedings. The Crown had legitimate options on the trial date — they could have sought leave to introduce the business records despite the notice defect, or requested an adjournment. Instead, they chose a third option: tactical withdrawal to avoid facing the music.

The judge referenced R. v. William Bedford Stanley Brown, where similar Crown conduct was stayed, noting that allowing such maneuvers "would make a mockery of the practice direction by the Chief Justice of Ontario that when a case has been set for trial it should proceed unless there are valid reasons to the contrary." The timing was particularly damning — the Crown didn't withdraw the charges until they had sufficient time to prepare new paperwork, demonstrating the calculated nature of their strategy.

Key Takeaway

The Crown cannot use withdrawal and re-laying of charges as a tactical weapon to avoid inconvenient court rulings.

When prosecution conduct is designed to circumvent the judicial process rather than serve the interests of justice, courts have the power to permanently stay proceedings as an abuse of process. This protection exists even in seemingly minor cases involving theft under $1,000.