R v J.V.

R. v. J.V.

[2002] O.J. No. 1027
Ontario Superior Court of Justice — Hill J. | March 1, 2002

Background

The Crown sought extraordinary relief to overturn two separate bail decisions where justices of the peace had released accused persons without hearing Crown submissions. In the first case, J.V. was charged with marijuana possession and breaching bail conditions from an earlier robbery charge. In the second case, L.(M.), a young person, faced charges of attempting to steal a motor vehicle and breaching two prior recognizances.

In both hearings, the justices of the peace announced their decisions to grant bail before allowing Crown counsel to make submissions. When prosecutors objected, they were told the court wasn't accepting their submissions. The Crown applied for writs of certiorari — extraordinary court orders to quash the bail decisions — arguing the justices exceeded their jurisdiction by denying natural justice.

Issues

1. Did the justices of the peace breach natural justice by refusing to hear Crown submissions before deciding bail?
2. Should the court exercise its discretion to grant certiorari despite finding jurisdictional error?

The Right to Be Heard

Justice Hill found clear breaches of natural justice. The "audi alteram partem" rule — the right to be heard — is fundamental to our legal system. Both sides in an adversarial proceeding must have a meaningful opportunity to make their case. Cross-examining witnesses isn't the same as making legal submissions; the Crown was effectively denied its right to argue why detention was justified under the statutory criteria.

The judge was particularly critical of the second hearing, where the justice of the peace adopted an "as goes one co-accused, so go all" approach without considering the individual circumstances of each accused. This constituted legal error, as co-accused persons can have very different backgrounds and risk profiles.

Discretionary Refusal of Relief

Despite finding serious jurisdictional errors, Justice Hill refused to grant the writs. Certiorari is an extraordinary remedy that courts won't grant automatically. Here, the Crown's own conduct weighed heavily against relief. The prosecutors had made elementary legal mistakes, incorrectly applied reverse onus provisions, used improper language (calling complainants "victims" before any finding of guilt), and showed unfamiliarity with binding court authorities.

More importantly, adequate alternative remedies existed. The accused persons could have sought bail reviews under section 521 of the Criminal Code — a faster, more appropriate remedy than these applications, which took over four months to reach court while the accused remained on bail.

Key Takeaway

Even clear jurisdictional errors won't guarantee extraordinary relief if your own conduct contributed to the problems and adequate alternatives exist.

While this case confirms that all parties have fundamental rights to be heard in adversarial proceedings, it also demonstrates that courts will consider the entire context — including delay, alternative remedies, and the applicant's own role in creating the mess — before granting extraordinary relief.