La portée du recours en certiorari

Amyot c. Autorité des marchés financiers, 2012 QCCA 2160 (CanLII)

Lien vers la décision

[10]        Le recours en certiorari est d’une portée très limitée. Dans l’arrêt Express Transaction, je le souligne en ces termes :

[26] It is well established that a certiorari application challenging the validity of the issuance of a search warrant is a rather limited exercise. It can be used only to question the jurisdiction of inferior provincial judges or decisions by them that constitute jurisdictional error. In R. v. Russell, 2001 SCC 53 (CanLII), [2001] 2 S.C.R. 804, 2001 SCC 53, the Supreme Court held unanimously:

19 The scope of review on certiorari is very limited. While at certain times in its history the writ of certiorari afforded more extensive review, todaycertiorari "runs largely to jurisdictional review or surveillance by a superior court of statutory tribunals, the term ‘jurisdiction’ being given its narrow or technical sense": Skogman v. The Queen, 1984 CanLII 22 (SCC), [1984] 2 S.C.R. 93, at p. 99. Thus, review on certiorari does not permit a reviewing court to overturn a decision of the statutory tribunal merely because that tribunal committed an error of law or reached a conclusion different from that which the reviewing court would have reached. Rather certiorari permits review "only where it is alleged that the tribunal has acted in excess of its assigned statutory jurisdiction or has acted in breach of the principles of natural justice which, by the authorities, is taken to be an excess of jurisdiction": Skogman, supra, at p. 100 (citing Forsythe v. The Queen, 1980 CanLII 15 (SCC), [1980] 2 S.C.R. 268).

[27] In the instant case, it is clear that the justice of the peace did not commit a jurisdictional error by delivering the search warrants, considering the information to obtain that formed part of the application. There was enough to satisfy the issuing judge that there were reasonable and probable grounds to believe that an offence had been or was being committed, and that the authorization sought would afford evidence of that offence (s. 487(1) Cr.C.).