R. v. Awashish 2018 SCC 45

R. v. Awashish 2018 SCC 45

Date	2018-10-26
Neutral citation	2018 SCC 45
Report	[2018] 3 SCR 87
Case number	37207
Judges	Wagner, Richard; Abella, Rosalie Silberman; Moldaver, Michael J.; Karakatsanis, Andromache; Gascon, Clément; Côté, Suzanne; Brown, Russell; Rowe, Malcolm; Martin, Sheilah
On appeal from	Quebec

Breakdown of the Decision:

• Unanimous Decision: Justice Rowe (Chief Justice Wagner and Justices Abella, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Gascon, Côté, Brown, and Martin agreed)

Case Background:

• Issue: Whether interlocutory appeals (appeals of decisions made during a trial) can be challenged before the final judgment in a criminal case.
• Case Facts: Ms. Awashish was charged with impaired driving and driving “over 80.” During the disclosure process, her lawyer requested additional documents related to the breathalyzer used in her test, including maintenance and training records. A provincial court judge ordered the Crown to disclose these documents.

Procedural History:

• Superior Court: The Crown requested a review of the provincial court’s disclosure order via certiorari. A Superior Court judge granted certiorari, canceling the order for additional disclosure.
• Provincial Court: The provincial court judge again ordered the Crown to provide the information, but the Superior Court granted a second certiorari application.
• Court of Appeal: Ruled in favor of Ms. Awashish, stating that certiorari was only available in limited situations, such as jurisdictional errors.

Supreme Court Ruling:

• Majority Decision: The Supreme Court unanimously ruled for Ms. Awashish, emphasizing that:
  • Interlocutory Appeals: In criminal cases, rulings made during a trial generally cannot be appealed until after the final judgment. This rule is to avoid interruptions and delays in the trial process.
  • Use of Certiorari: Certiorari can only be used to address jurisdictional errors, not legal errors. A jurisdictional error occurs when a judge acts beyond their legal authority. A legal error, on the other hand, can be corrected on appeal after the final judgment.
  • Application in this Case: The provincial court judge’s decision to order disclosure, while possibly incorrect, was within her jurisdiction and thus not subject to certiorari.
  • Purpose of the Rule: Allowing interlocutory appeals or the use of certiorari to address every legal error during a trial would lead to significant delays. The Supreme Court highlighted the importance of concluding criminal trials within a reasonable time frame.

Implications:

• The ruling reaffirms the principle that trial processes should not be interrupted by side issues, and legal errors should be addressed through the standard appellate process after a final judgment.
• Certiorari remains available for jurisdictional errors but cannot be used as a workaround for the prohibition on interlocutory appeals in criminal cases.
• The Court indicated that relevance of requested documents should be evaluated in light of its decision in R. v. Gubbins, which was released on the same day.