Comtois c. R., 2017 QCCA 1376
[22] In this matter the prosecution had two alternatives following the refusal of the justice to issue the warrants. His decisions were not final and did not bind anyone as res judicata. The prosecution could either present the same or revised informations to another justice of the peace, without seeking relief by certiorari, or it could present the same or revised informations to another tribunal having the jurisdiction of a justice, again without recourse to prerogative relief.[18] To avoid any suggestion of “judge-shopping” the prosecution in either of these cases of “reapplication” would be, to say the least, prudent to advise the justice that a previous application had been refused.[19] It might also be prudent for issuing judges to inquire whether a previous application has been made. Even if a motion for certiorari was successful to quash a justice’s refusal to issue a warrant, a reapplication is distinct from proceedings in certiorari. There is no foundation in law for the respondent’s suggestion that the motion for certiorari was also, “de facto,” a reapplication for the issuance of the warrants refused by the justice.
Aucun commentaire:
Publier un commentaire