Blog

criminal

Non-Convictions – Peace Bonds and Stays of Proceedings

21 April, 2025

By Hans 'John' Kalina

This discussion is an overview on four key concepts in Canadian criminal law: (1) Section 810 Peace Bonds, (2) Common Law Peace Bonds, (3) Judicial Stays of Proceedings, and (4) Stays of Proceedings under the Criminal Code of Canada. The discussion will cover their legal basis, consequences, and the responsibilities they impose on the parties involved. 

1. Section 810 of the Criminal Code (Peace Bond)

Legal Basis

Section 810 of the Criminal Code of Canada empowers a court to require an individual (the defendant or “respondent”) to enter into a peace bond if there are reasonable grounds to fear that the person will commit a criminal offense—often, but not exclusively, offenses involving violence or harm to another person. The peace bond is intended as a preventative, rather than punitive, measure. 

R v Budreo (1996), 104 C.C.C. (3d) 263 (Ont. C.A.): upholding the constitutionality of the s. 810 peace bond scheme, recognizing its preventative nature.

Consequences and Responsibilities

1. Conditions Imposed: A respondent can be ordered to comply with various conditions for up to 12 months (and sometimes up to 24 months for certain offenses, such as fear of sexual offenses against individuals under 16). These conditions can include staying away from certain people or places, not possessing weapons, abstaining from drugs or alcohol, or attending counselling.
2. Criminal Offense on Breach: Breaching the conditions of a section 810 peace bond is itself a criminal offense. This means that even though the peace bond itself does not result in a criminal record for the underlying feared offense (because there is no conviction for that offense), the respondent does risk criminal sanctions if they fail to abide by the imposed conditions.
3. No Finding of Guilt: A section 810 peace bond is not a finding of guilt for any criminal offense. The person subject to it technically consents to the bond to avoid the risk of more serious legal consequences. Therefore, a section 810 peace bond does not result in a criminal conviction or a criminal record for the feared offense.

Practical Considerations

• From the Crown’s perspective, a section 810 peace bond is beneficial because it is relatively quick, ensures compliance with certain public safety measures, and prevents potential future harm.
• From the respondent’s perspective, consenting to a peace bond can be less onerous than going to trial if the Crown was otherwise seeking to lay new charges or maintain existing charges for threatening behavior.

2. Common Law Peace Bond

Legal Basis

Although less commonly used, Canadian courts retain an inherent jurisdiction at common law to bind individuals to keep the peace and be of good behavior, independent of statutory provisions. This power is rooted in the court’s inherent jurisdiction to maintain public order and prevent offenses.

R v Ferguson, [1982] O.J. No. 3792 (C.A.): referencing the court’s inherent power to impose conditions for the maintenance of peace and order.

R. v. Parks, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 871; specifically recognized the jurisdiction of a provincial court judge to impose a peace bond on someone who has not been found guilty of an offence on the basis of preventative justice.

R. v. Lall, 2015 ONSC 2709; upholds a preliminary hearing Judge’s power to impose a common law peace bond.

Consequences and Responsibilities

1. Similar Conditions to Statutory Peace Bonds: A court may impose conditions that mirror those imposed under section 810 orders—e.g., prohibitions on weapons, orders not to contact certain persons, etc.
2. Breach of Conditions: As with a section 810 peace bond, breaching a common law peace bond can lead to criminal charges, because the breach itself constitutes a separate offense (i.e., failing to comply with a lawful order of the court).
3. Less Formal Process: Common law peace bonds can be seen as more flexible. However, they are more rarely used due to well-established statutory mechanisms (like s. 810) that lay out clearly defined procedures and conditions.

Practical Considerations

• The common law peace bond is largely overshadowed by the statutory version in s. 810, which provides a detailed legislative framework.
• Yet, the existence of the common law power can be crucial in unique or urgent situations where a statutory peace bond may not precisely apply, but the court concludes that public protection demands some form of restraint.

Judicial Stay of Proceedings

Legal Basis

A judicial stay of proceedings (as opposed to a Crown or statutory stay) is a discretionary remedy recognized at common law and in the Charter context. It is typically granted by a judge where continuing with the trial or the prosecution would compromise the integrity of the judicial system or amount to an abuse of process.

R v O’Connor, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 411: setting out the framework for abuse of process and Charter breaches.

R v Babos, 2014 SCC 16: revisiting and clarifying the criteria for a judicial stay in cases of serious state misconduct.

R v Regan, 2002 SCC 12: discussing the high threshold required for a judicial stay on the basis of abuse of process.

Consequences and Responsibilities

1. Termination of Proceedings: Once a judicial stay is granted, the prosecution is halted. Unlike an acquittal, a stay does not necessarily “clear” the defendant in the factual sense, but it effectively ends the case.
2. Possibility of Revival: Where the stay is judicially ordered due to an abuse of process, revival is typically not an option—unless extraordinary circumstances arise. However, with some stays, the Crown may theoretically apply to lift the stay within a certain time period if new evidence emerges or if the conditions giving rise to the stay are resolved (although this is more commonly discussed in relation to Crown-initiated stays).
3. High Threshold: Courts will only grant a judicial stay in extraordinary circumstances—for example, where pre-trial or state misconduct has irreversibly prejudiced the accused’s right to a fair trial, or where to proceed would be contrary to the public interest in a fundamental way.

Practical Considerations

• Accused persons who seek a judicial stay must show the court that less extreme remedies (e.g., exclusion of evidence, adjournment, or other Charter remedies) are inadequate.
• A judicial stay signifies that continuing the prosecution would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

4. Stay of Proceedings Pursuant to the Criminal Code of Canada

Legal Basis

Under the Section 579 of the Criminal Code, the Crown has the power to “direct a stay” of proceedings at any point. This is often referred to as a Crown stay. It differs from a judicial stay, as it is initiated and imposed by the Crown, not the court.

R v Keyowski, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 657: recognizing Crown discretion in entering stays or withdrawing charges.

Consequences and Responsibilities

1. Temporary Halt: A Crown stay typically stops all proceedings in the matter for up to one year. The Crown may, within that year, reinstate the charge(s) without laying fresh charges. If the Crown does not recommence proceedings within that one-year period, the charges are effectively discontinued.
2. No Finding of Guilt or Innocence: Like the judicial stay, there is neither a conviction nor an acquittal. The accused is not required to plead guilty or otherwise. However, the matter remains formally unresolved unless and until the year passes or the Crown resumes prosecution.
3. Strategic Use: The Crown may enter a stay of proceedings if there is insufficient evidence to prove the charge, if continuing is not in the public interest, or to buy time for further investigation.

Practical Considerations

• From the accused’s standpoint, a Crown stay can create a period of uncertainty, as there is a possibility of the case being resurrected.
• From the Crown’s perspective, this mechanism offers flexibility to pause a prosecution if circumstances require further evidence-gathering or if negotiations (e.g., resolution discussions) are ongoing.

Comparative Analysis

1. Preventative vs. Terminative Measures
• Section 810 & Common Law Peace Bonds: Both are preventative orders, seeking to deter potential future offenses or harm. They do not entail a criminal finding of guilt but do impose conditions on an individual’s liberty and carry the possibility of criminal charges if breached.
• Judicial Stays & Statutory (Crown) Stays: Both forms of stay terminate—or at least pause—active criminal proceedings. They address the current prosecution rather than imposing prospective conditions on an individual.
2. Degree of Court Involvement
• Section 810 Peace Bonds: Governed directly by statute. The court becomes involved upon an application by an informant (often the Crown or a complainant), and the court imposes specific conditions.
• Common Law Peace Bonds: Court’s inherent jurisdiction is invoked. Less frequently used, but the judge still imposes conditions.
• Judicial Stay of Proceedings: Ordered by a judge, typically in response to a motion by the defense alleging an abuse of process or severe Charter breach.
• Crown (Statutory section 579) Stay: Initiated by the Crown, generally without needing direct judicial approval (though the court is informed).
3. Consequences and Legal Effect
• Section 810 & Common Law Peace Bonds: Do not create a criminal record for the feared offense. However, a breach leads to criminal charges.
• Judicial Stay: Immediately ends the proceedings, with no direct recourse for the Crown to reinstate the charges (unless extraordinary circumstances exist).
• Crown Stay: Suspends proceedings for a year. During this period, the Crown may reactivate the prosecution without laying new charges.
4. Duration of Effect
• Peace Bonds: Typically last up to 12 months (longer in certain exceptional cases, like section 810.1 or section 810.2, involving more serious allegations).
• Judicial Stay: Permanent, unless extraordinary circumstances permit its lifting—something very rare.
• Crown Stay: Automatically expires after 12 months if not reactivated.
5. Impact on Accused’s Daily Life
• Peace Bonds: May impose conditions on the individual’s mobility, contacts, and possibly lifestyle (e.g., curfew, no weapons).
• Stays of Proceedings: Do not impose conditions on the accused; rather, they halt the legal jeopardy (temporarily or permanently).

Conclusion

Each of these legal mechanisms serves a distinct purpose and arises at different points in the criminal justice process:

• Section 810 Peace Bonds and Common Law Peace Bonds: Preventative measures aimed at averting potential future harm and placing certain behavioral restrictions on individuals who might pose a risk.
• Judicial Stays of Proceedings: A remedy of last resort by the courts to address serious issues that undermine the fairness or integrity of the judicial process (e.g., abuse of process, egregious Charter violations).
• Stays of Proceedings under the Criminal Code (Crown Stay): A discretionary tool for the Crown to pause or discontinue a prosecution if deemed in the public interest or due to insufficient evidence.

Peace bonds can be a strategic resolution for certain cases where preventing future harm is paramount, but they do impose conditions and can lead to criminal liability for breaches. Stays of proceedings—whether judicial or Crown-initiated—are powerful mechanisms that end or suspend the prosecution itself. While a stay can alleviate immediate jeopardy for an accused, a Crown stay may leave the door open for the proceedings to resume, whereas a judicial stay (granted by a judge) effectively closes the door in almost all cases.

---

Tags: arrest, criminal defence