Sopinka J.
Sopinka J. ‑‑ We agree with the thorough reasons of Goodman J.A. speaking for a unanimous Court of Appeal (1996), 29 O.R. (3d) 144, that although there was a breach of the appellant’s right to make full answer and defence, the trial judge erred in the exercise of discretion in finding that this was one of those clearest of cases in which a stay was the only appropriate remedy. We agree with Goodman J.A. that in the circumstances of this case an adjournment was the appropriate remedy.
We would only add that the test for determining the degree of relevance required in order to attract the obligation of the Crown to produce is that set out in this Court’s judgments in R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326, and R. v. O’Connor, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 411. The introduction of other language to describe this test such as “an air of reality” should be avoided.
The appeal is dismissed.
Cases cited
- 29 O.R. (3d) 144 29 O.R. (3d) 144 ¶ 1
- R. v. Stinchcombe 21904-1991-11-07 ¶ 2
- R. v. O'Connor 24114-1995-12-14 ¶ 2