La jurisprudence reconnaît la possibilité qu'un remède nécessite une directive spéciale au jury pour pallier à la violation d'un droit

R. v. Bero, 2000 CanLII 16956 (ON CA)

Lien vers la décision

[18] The trial judge should not have ruled on the motion at the outset of the trial. This Court has repeatedly indicated that except where the appropriateness of a stay is manifest at the outset of proceedings, a trial judge should reserve on motions such as the motion brought in this case until after the evidence has been heard. The trial judge can more effectively assess issues such as the degree of prejudice caused to an accused by the destruction of evidence at the end of the trial: R. v. B.(D.J.) reflex, (1993), 16 C.R.R. (2d) 381 at 382 (Ont. C.A.); R. v. A.(S.) reflex, (1992), 60 O.A.C. 324 at 325 (C.A.). The approach favoured by this Court was approved in R. v. La 1997 CanLII 309 (SCC), (1997), 116 C.C.C. (3d) 97 at 107-108 (S.C.C.). In keeping with that approach, I will consider the appellant’s claim that a stay should have been granted in the light of the evidence which was adduced at the trial.