| Case ID |
176aec95-a063-43fe-b663-40d823631021 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
|
| Decision Date |
May 12, 2017 |
| Hearing Date |
Dec 05, 2016 |
| Decision |
The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the award of costs against the respondent personally. The court found that the Superior Court had correctly exercised its discretion in awarding costs due to the respondent's deliberate and abusive conduct, which significantly disrupted the administration of justice. The Court of Appeal erred by substituting its judgment over that of the Superior Court without identifying any legal errors, resulting in the restoration of costs as justified by the facts and the high threshold required for such sanctions. |
| Summary |
In the landmark decision cited as 2017 SLD 1535 and 2017 SCMR 1444, the Supreme Court of Canada addressed the critical issue of awarding costs against a lawyer personally within the context of criminal proceedings. Decided on May 12, 2017, and heard on December 5, 2016, this case involved Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions as the appellant and Robert Jodoin as the respondent. The core of the dispute centered around Mr. Jodoin's misuse of procedural motions, specifically filing writs of prohibition alleging judicial bias to obtain undue postponements in multiple impaired driving cases he was handling.
The Superior Court initially granted the appellant's request to award costs against Mr. Jodoin personally, citing his frivolous and abusive actions that severely disrupted court proceedings and undermined the administration of justice. These actions were deemed to constitute a deliberate strategy aimed at obstructing the judicial process rather than substantive legal challenges. The Court of Appeal, however, set aside this costs award, leading to a subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Upon review, the Supreme Court upheld the Superior Court's decision to award costs against Mr. Jodoin. The apex court emphasized the inherent authority of courts to sanction legal practitioners who engage in conduct that flagrantly abuses judicial procedures. The decision underscored that while defense lawyers play a crucial role in upholding the rights of the accused, they must operate within the bounds of ethical and professional standards. Mr. Jodoin's deliberate filing of motions for writs of prohibition without substantial grounds was found to be an egregious misuse of judicial resources, justifying personal costs awards to deter such misconduct.
The judgment highlighted the delicate balance between ensuring zealous advocacy and maintaining the integrity of the justice system. It reinforced the principle that legal practitioners must respect the authority and procedures of the courts, and any deviation for ulterior motives, such as causing unnecessary delays, warrants judicial sanction. The Supreme Court also clarified the high threshold required for imposing personal costs, ensuring that such measures are reserved for truly exceptional cases where the misconduct significantly impairs judicial functioning.
This case serves as a pivotal reference for future instances where legal counsel's conduct may threaten the efficiency and fairness of judicial proceedings. By affirming the Superior Court's authority to impose personal costs in criminal cases, the Supreme Court reinforced the judiciary's role in safeguarding the administration of justice against abuses by legal practitioners. The decision underscores the necessity for lawyers to balance their duty to defend their clients vigorously with the imperative to uphold the integrity and smooth functioning of the legal system. Consequently, the ruling not only impacts legal professionals but also fortifies the framework within which criminal justice operates, ensuring that procedural mechanisms are not exploited to the detriment of fair and timely trials. |
| Court |
Supreme Court of Canada
|
| Entities Involved |
Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions,
Robert Jodoin,
Director of Public Prosecutions,
Criminal Lawyers Association (Ontario),
Association des avocats de la defense de Montreal,
Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia,
Canadian Civil Liberties Association
|
| Judges |
MCLACHLIN, C.J.,
ABELLA, JJ,
MOLDAVER, JJ,
KARAKATSANIS, JJ,
WAGNER, JJ,
GASCON, JJ,
C T, JJ,
BROWN, JJ,
ROWE, JJ
|
| Lawyers |
Daniel Royer,
Catherine Dumais,
Catherine Cantin-Dussault,
Gilles Villeneuve,
Mathieu Stanton,
Maxime Hebrard,
Marlys A. Edwardh,
Walid Hijazi,
Lida Sara Nouraie,
Nicholas St-Jacques,
Mathew P. Good,
Ariane Bisaillon,
Frank Addario,
Stephen Aylward
|
| Petitioners |
Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions
|
| Respondents |
Robert Jodoin
|
| Citations |
2017 SLD 1535,
2017 SCMR 1444
|
| Other Citations |
R. v. Anderson 2014 SCC 41, [2014] 2 S.C.R. 167,
Young v. Young [1993] 4 S.C.R. 3,
Canam Enterprises Inc. v. Coles (2000) 51 O.R. (3d) 481 (C.A.),
Morel v. Canada 2008 FCA 53, [2009] 1 F.C.R. 629,
R. v. Liberatore, 2010 NSCA 26, 292 N.S.R. (2d) 69,
R. v. Smith (1999), 133 Man. R. (2d) 89 (Q.B.),
Canada (Procureur général) v. Bisson, [1995] R.J.Q. 2409 (Sup. Ct.),
I. H. Jacob, "The Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court" (1970), 23 Current Leg. Probs. 23, at pp. 46-48,
R. v. 974649 Ontario Inc., 2001 SCC 81, [2001] 3 S.C.R. 575,
R. v. Trang, 2002 ABQB 744, 323 A.R. 297,
Fearn v. Canada Customs, 2014 ABQB 114, 586 A.R. 23,
R. v. Handy, 2002 SCC 56, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 908
|
| Laws Involved |
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46
|
| Sections |
657.3(3),
657.3(4)
|