Appellant Court may decline to order new trial where such would not serve interests of justice

R. v. Maieron, 2011 ONCA 78 dealt with the power of judges to interfere with prosecutorial discretion. In dealing with that the Court of Appeal noted that the Court may decline to order a new trial, even where an appeal is allowed, if such would not serve the interests of justice:
[1] We agree with the Crown's submission that the appeal judge wrongly refused to order a new trial and stayed the proceedings on the basis that the appeal judge believed the allegations to be trivial and not worthy of prosecution. It is not for judges to second guess the decision to prosecute a particular allegation.

[2] An appellate court may, in exceptional cases, having determined that the order made at trial should be set aside, decline to order a new trial and direct a stay. The appellate court can do so where, in the circumstances, a new trial would not serve the interests of justice. In the circumstances of this case, the focus of that inquiry should be on the impact of a new trial on the respondent at this point in the proceedings.

[3] The respondent has been before the court on four occasions at personal expense and inconvenience. The allegation against him is minor both in its nature and in respect of the particulars of this allegation. The Crown has made its legal point through this endorsement which makes it clear that judges cannot interfere with the Crown's exercise of its discretion to initiate prosecutions, except in those few cases that come within the abuse of process doctrine. A new trial at this stage would not serve any useful purpose and would cause further inconvenience and expense to the respondent. He has done nothing to contribute to the prolonged litigation of this minor allegation, but is in a sense a victim of self-initiated judicial errors.