A. A. Campbell

This ruling addresses a s. 11(b) Charter application for a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay.

The applicant, charged with sexual assault and touching for a sexual purpose, argued that the total delay of 33 months and 16 days exceeded the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The Crown attributed significant portions of the delay to defence conduct and exceptional circumstances.

The court analyzed the procedural chronology, attributing 120 days of delay to the defence, primarily due to counsel's availability for the preliminary inquiry and a delay in responding to a pretrial invitation.

With this defence delay deducted, the net delay fell to 29 months and 2 days, below the presumptive ceiling.

Consequently, the onus shifted to the applicant to prove the delay was unreasonable, which they did not attempt.

The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.

Idrisso Palmer was found guilty of possession of an unauthorized firearm and a loaded firearm.

The Crown sought a 3-year sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence, citing anti-Black racism and strict bail conditions.

The court considered sentencing principles, aggravating and mitigating factors, including Mr. Palmer's social context, lack of male role models, economic disadvantage, and prior lengthy pre-trial custody for charges that were ultimately withdrawn.

The court found a fit sentence to be two years less a day, and imposed a conditional sentence with strict conditions, emphasizing rehabilitation over incarceration given the unique circumstances.

The defendant brought a motion to enforce an alleged settlement agreement reached on December 8, 2023, in a professional negligence action.

The plaintiff opposed, claiming a misunderstanding with his own counsel regarding the scope of settlement authority.

The court applied Rule 49.09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding that an objective review of the correspondence between counsel clearly indicated a mutual intention to create a legally binding contract.

The court held that any misunderstanding was solely between the plaintiff and his lawyers, not between the parties, and therefore did not invalidate the settlement.

The motion to enforce the settlement was granted, and costs were awarded to the defendant.

This is a sentencing judgment for Aliyan Ahmed, who pleaded guilty to manslaughter.

The offence involved a single punch to the head of an intoxicated 18-year-old university student, Gabriel Neil, causing him to fall, hit his head, and later die.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the grave consequence, the public nature of the assault, the offender's initiation of violence, and his flight from the scene.

Mitigating factors included the guilty plea, genuine remorse, strong rehabilitative prospects, lack of criminal record, and youth.

The court emphasized the principles of denunciation and general deterrence, finding that a conditional sentence would not adequately reflect the gravity of the offence.

A three-year term of imprisonment was imposed, along with ancillary orders.

The applicant, Yiu Sun Wong, charged with fraud over $5,000, sought a stay of proceedings based on multiple Charter infringements during his arrest and 72-hour detention.

The court found that while the initial arrest warrant was lawful, its execution and the subsequent detention were unlawful and arbitrary.

Specifically, police failed to obtain a Feeney warrant for an in-home arrest, improperly sought and obtained a six-day remand in British Columbia under a misapprehension of facts, and delayed bringing the applicant before an Ontario justice for 72 hours, during which officers took a day off.

The court found these actions breached the applicant's s. 7 and 9 Charter rights and demonstrated a systemic disregard for statutory duties under the Criminal Code, particularly the principle of restraint (s. 493.1) and timely appearance before a justice (s. 503(1)).

Concluding that no alternative remedy could adequately address the systemic police misconduct and protect the integrity of the justice system, the court granted a stay of proceedings.