Law360 Canada ( July 11, 2025, 12:16 PM EDT) -- Appeal by Varennes from a judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal which set aside verdicts along with the order for a judge-alone trial and ordered a new trial. Varennes was charged with second-degree murder. He requested a judge-alone trial under s. 473(1) of the Criminal Code (Code) arguing, among other reasons, that pandemic-related delays to jury trials risked breaching his right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter). The prosecution did not consent to a judge-alone trial. On a motion by Varennes, the trial judge allowed the trial to take place before a judge alone despite the Crown’s refusal. She determined that a prosecutor’s decision to refuse to consent to a trial by a judge alone did not fall within the core of prosecutorial discretion reviewable only for abuse of process. She was concerned that pandemic-related restrictions would likely delay the trial and found that the Crown’s refusal to consent was unfair or unreasonable in the circumstances. After trial, Varennes was acquitted of second-degree murder but convicted of manslaughter. The Crown appealed. The Court of Appeal was satisfied that it had jurisdiction to review the order for a judge-alone trial. It concluded that the Crown’s decision whether to consent to a judge-alone trial under s. 473(1) of the Code constituted prosecutorial discretion, which was reviewable only for abuse of process. Finding that this high threshold had not been met, it declared the judge-alone trial a “nullity” and ordered a new trial. The issues on appeal were whether the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to hear the appeal of the trial judge’s decision to proceed by judge alone, was the trial judge entitled to order a judge-alone trial and should outstanding proceedings be stayed....