Criminal Code of Canada - section 573.1(3) - Grounds of review

section 573.1(3)

INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION

This section outlines the reasons for which the judge of the Court of Appeal of Nunavut may grant relief in case of errors in decisions or orders made by the Nunavut Court of Justice.

SECTION WORDING

573.1(3) The judge of the Court of Appeal of Nunavut may grant relief under subsection (4) only if the judge is satisfied that (a) in the case of any decision or order mentioned in subsection (1), (i) the judge of the Nunavut Court of Justice failed to observe a principle of natural justice or failed or refused to exercise the judge’s jurisdiction, or (ii) the decision or order was made as a result of an irrelevant consideration or for an improper purpose; (b) in the case of a decision or order mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), that (i) the judge failed to comply with a statutory requirement for the making of the decision or order, (ii) the decision or order was made in the absence of any evidence that a statutory requirement for the making of the decision or order was met, (iii) the decision or order was made as a result of reckless disregard for the truth, fraud, intentional misrepresentation of material facts or intentional omission to state material facts, (iv) the warrant is so vague or lacking in particularity that it authorizes an unreasonable search, or (v) the warrant lacks a material term or condition that is required by law; (c) in the case of a decision or order mentioned in paragraph (1)(b), that the judge of the Nunavut Court of Justice (i) failed to follow a mandatory provision of this Act relating to the conduct of a preliminary inquiry, (ii) ordered the accused to stand trial when there was no evidence adduced on which a properly instructed jury acting reasonably could convict, or (iii) discharged the accused when there was some evidence adduced on which a properly instructed jury acting reasonably could convict; (d) in the case of a decision or order mentioned in paragraph (1)(c) or (d), that the judge of the Nunavut Court of Justice erred in law; (e) in the case of a decision or order mentioned in paragraph (1)(e), that (i) the information or indictment failed to give the accused notice of the charge, (ii) the judge of the Nunavut Court of Justice did not have jurisdiction to try the offence, or (iii) the provision creating the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused is unconstitutional; or (f) in the case of a decision or order mentioned in paragraph (1)(f), that (i) the judge failed to comply with a statutory requirement for the making of the decision or order, (ii) the decision or order was made in the absence of any evidence that a statutory requirement for the making of the decision or order was met, or (iii) the decision or order was made as a result of reckless disregard for the truth, fraud, intentional misrepresentation of material facts or intentional omission to state material facts.

EXPLANATION

Section 573.1(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada outlines the criteria that a judge of the Court of Appeal of Nunavut must consider before granting relief in criminal cases. This section identifies a number of scenarios where a decision or order made by the judge of the Nunavut Court of Justice may be challenged and overturned by the Court of Appeal of Nunavut. The section states that relief may be granted if there is evidence that the judge of the Nunavut Court of Justice failed to observe a principle of natural justice or failed to exercise their jurisdiction. Relief may also be granted if the decision or order was made as a result of an irrelevant consideration or for an improper purpose. Additionally, the section allows for relief if the decision or order was made in contravention of statutory requirements or if there was reckless disregard for the truth, fraud, intentional misrepresentation of material facts or intentional omission to state material facts. The section also stipulates that relief may be granted if the warrant is vague or lacking in particularity, or if it lacks a material term or condition required by law. Overall, the purpose of section 573.1(3) is to provide a mechanism for individuals to challenge criminal decisions or orders that are made in error or violate their rights. It ensures that judges are held accountable and that individuals are able to seek justice and protections under the law.

COMMENTARY

Section 573.1(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada outlines the circumstances under which a judge of the Court of Appeal of Nunavut may grant relief for a decision or order made in the Nunavut Court of Justice. This section emphasizes the importance of ensuring that the principles of natural justice are observed, and that judges exercise their jurisdiction appropriately. The subsections set out in this section provide specific conditions that must be met in order for relief to be granted. For example, subsection (3)(a) requires that a decision or order was made as a result of an irrelevant consideration or for an improper purpose, or that the judge failed to observe a principle of natural justice or refused to exercise their jurisdiction. In essence, this subsection focuses on ensuring that the decision or order was made in accordance with the law and not based on any extraneous or inappropriate factors. Similarly, subsection (3)(d) identifies that relief may be granted if the judge of the Nunavut Court of Justice erred in law. This subsection is especially important, as it emphasizes the need for judges to make decisions based on the law and legal precedents, rather than personal biases or preferences. Perhaps most importantly, subsection (3)(e) provides relief if the information or indictment failed to give the accused notice of the charge, the judge did not have jurisdiction to try the offence, or the provision creating the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused is unconstitutional. This section is vital in ensuring that individuals are not unfairly charged with crimes or subject to unconstitutional laws. Overall, Section 573.1(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a critical part of the justice system in Nunavut. It provides a mechanism for reviewing decisions made in the lower courts and ensures that individuals receive fair and just treatment under the law. By setting out specific conditions that must be met for relief to be granted, this section emphasizes the importance of adhering to legal principles and ensuring that judges act impartially and in accordance with the law.

STRATEGY

When dealing with section 573.1(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada, there are several strategic considerations that need to be taken into account. This provision allows for relief to be granted to an accused who can demonstrate that a decision or order made by a judge of the Nunavut Court of Justice was unjust, unfair, or illegal. However, obtaining relief under this provision can be a complex and difficult process, and it requires careful consideration of the legal options available to the accused. One important strategy that could be employed when dealing with section 573.1(3) is to carefully review the decision or order that is in question. If there is evidence that the judge failed to observe a principle of natural justice, or if the decision or order was made as a result of an irrelevant consideration or for an improper purpose, then relief may be granted under subsection (4). This means that the accused will need to provide evidence that will convince the judge of the Court of Appeal of Nunavut that the decision or order was arbitrary, unfair, or illegal. Another strategy that could be employed when dealing with section 573.1(3) is to carefully review the legal requirements that apply to the decision or order in question. For example, if the decision or order is related to a search warrant, then it may be possible to demonstrate that the warrant was vague or lacking in particularity, or that it lacked a material term or condition that is required by law. Similarly, if the decision or order is related to a preliminary inquiry, then it may be possible to demonstrate that the judge failed to follow a mandatory provision of the Criminal Code of Canada. In addition to these strategies, there are several other considerations that should be taken into account when dealing with section 573.1(3). For example, it is important to be aware of the timelines and procedures that apply to this provision, as well as the legal arguments that are likely to be persuasive to the judge of the Court of Appeal of Nunavut. Furthermore, it may be helpful to retain the services of a lawyer who is experienced in dealing with appeals and who can provide guidance and support throughout the process. Overall, obtaining relief under section 573.1(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada requires careful consideration of the legal options available, as well as a solid understanding of the legal requirements that apply to the decision or order in question. By employing a strategic approach and seeking out expert legal guidance, an accused may be able to obtain relief and ensure that their rights are respected under the law.