In R. v. G.B. (Ont CA, 2023) the Court of Appeal considered a 'stay' as a remedy for alleged disclosure breaches:
 The applicant’s second ground of appeal is that the trial judge erred in dismissing his request for a stay of the charges against him based on what he argued were disclosure failures of the Crown.
 The trial judge found that the Crown’s disclosure had not in every respect been timely and complete − rather, he termed it “sub-optimal”. But he found that prosecutorial misconduct had not been made out, and that the applicant had not been deprived of a fair trial or opportunity to make full answer and defence, because, for example, the late disclosure was still in time for use in cross-examination or was of little probative value.
 A stay is a remedy of last resort, to be granted only in the “clearest of cases” when no other remedy can address the harm: R. v. Babos, 2014 SCC 16,  1 S.C.R. 309, at paras. 30-31 and 36-40. The trial judge’s determination that no such harm was present here and thus to refuse a stay is entitled to deference on appeal: R. v. Graham, 2020 ONCA 692, at para. 18.
The author has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this Isthatlegal.ca webpage.