Adam D. Romain

The defendants brought a motion seeking an order compelling the plaintiff to attend a psychiatric defence medical examination after the plaintiff had already attended defence medical assessments with an orthopaedic specialist and a neuropsychologist.

The defendants argued that the neuropsychological assessment did not substitute for a psychiatric evaluation, particularly in light of references in the report suggesting potential psychiatric issues.

The court held that the parties had effectively agreed that the plaintiff would attend either a neuropsychological or psychiatric defence examination but not both, and the defendants had already exercised that option.

In the absence of medical evidence showing the plaintiff was receiving psychiatric treatment or requiring psychiatric assessment, the allegations in the statement of claim alone were insufficient to justify an additional defence medical.

The motion was dismissed and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The young person appealed their custodial sentence.

The Court of Appeal admitted fresh evidence showing the young person had done well in school and had good prospects, supported by caring grandparents.

The Court allowed the appeal and commuted the balance of the custodial sentence to deferred custody, leaving the probation order intact.

The applicants, two young persons charged with multiple counts of robbery, brought a pre-trial motion seeking a stay of proceedings under section 11(b) of the Charter, alleging unreasonable delay.

The total delay between arrest and the scheduled seven-day trial was approximately 13 months.

The court applied the Morin framework, finding that while the delay was longer than ideal for a youth court matter, it was largely attributable to neutral inherent time requirements, including bail proceedings and retaining counsel.

The institutional delay of just over nine months was deemed reasonable given the complexity of the case, and the motion was dismissed.