A. A. Ghosh

The appellant, Trisan Construction, appealed its conviction and $20,000 fine for damaging a natural gas pipeline during an excavation project.

The appellant argued that the trial court erred in dismissing its Charter applications for pre-charge delay (abuse of process) and unreasonable delay to trial (s. 11(b)).

It also argued that the trial court erred in finding it failed to establish the defence of due diligence, and that the fine was unfit.

The Ontario Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the trial justice's Charter rulings, concluding that the appellant failed to prove it took reasonable care to avoid the damage, and holding that the $20,000 fine was fit.

The accused was tried for breaching a probation order prohibiting him from being near his former mother-in-law.

The complainant alleged she recognized the accused, who was wearing a mask and hat, when he briefly entered the store where she worked.

The court found the Crown failed to prove the accused's identity beyond a reasonable doubt due to the frailties of the recognition evidence.

Furthermore, even if identity was proven, the Crown failed to establish the accused had subjective knowledge he was violating the condition, as it was a chance encounter and he left immediately.

The accused was acquitted.

The applicants, charged with drug trafficking, brought an application alleging a violation of their right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The total delay was over 26 months.

The court found that late disclosure of police radio communications caused significant delay that was not attributable to the defence.

After deducting delay caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the net delay remained above the 18-month presumptive ceiling.

The court granted the application and ordered a stay of proceedings.

Subsequently, the court summarily dismissed the Crown's application for forfeiture of seized funds, finding no reasonable prospect of success and that it would be unjust to permit forfeiture following a judicial stay.

The accused was tried for possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking.

The police obtained judicial authorizations based on information from a confidential informant and an 'address of interest' identified through invalid production orders for Health Canada records.

The court found that the production orders were unconstitutional as they did not disclose an offence, and the information derived from them had to be excised.

The remaining information from the confidential informant lacked credibility and corroboration, failing to provide reasonable grounds for the authorizations.

The court found a serious violation of the accused's s. 8 Charter rights and excluded the seized drugs under s. 24(2), resulting in an acquittal.

The applicant, charged with possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking, brought an application alleging a violation of his right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The total delay was 24 months, but after deducting defence delay and delay caused by the exceptional circumstance of the COVID-19 pandemic, the net delay fell below the 18-month presumptive ceiling.

The court found that the remaining delay was reasonable and that the justice system took appropriate mitigating steps during the pandemic.

The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.

The accused, charged with possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking, brought a motion for disclosure of application materials related to two British Columbia production orders and the date the RCMP was advised by the Crown that those orders were invalid.

The defence sought this disclosure to support a section 8 Charter challenge to authorizations obtained in Ontario.

The court granted the application, finding that the materials were part of the investigative file, relevant to the Charter challenge, and that the date of the Crown's advice was not protected by solicitor-client privilege.