A. Dresser

The applicant, charged with attempted murder and firearms offences, brought an application under s. 11(b) of the Charter for a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay.

The total delay was 39 months and 23 days, well above the 30-month Jordan ceiling.

The Crown argued that a significant portion of the delay should be attributed to the defence due to a late re-election and failure to promptly request an Information to Obtain (ITO).

The court found that the defence's actions were legitimate responses to the Crown's ongoing failure to make timely disclosure, particularly regarding a phone extraction and the related ITO.

The court concluded that the delay was unreasonable and stayed the proceedings.

The applicant, charged with first degree murder following a fatal stabbing, applied for bail.

The Crown conceded the primary ground but opposed release on the secondary and tertiary grounds.

The court found the proposed release plan, involving three sureties, house arrest, and electronic monitoring, addressed secondary ground concerns.

On the tertiary ground, the court noted the Crown's case for first degree murder was non-existent and the case for second degree murder was mediocre, while the case for manslaughter was strong.

Given the applicant's youth, lack of criminal record, and the weakness of the murder charge, the court granted bail with a $300,000 pledge.

The accused was charged with possession of crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking after drugs were discovered during a strip search incident to arrest.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging breaches of his rights under ss. 8 and 9.

The court found that the police lacked reasonable grounds for the warrantless arrest, relying on uncorroborated confidential informant information, violating s. 9.

Furthermore, the strip search violated s. 8 as it lacked sufficient grounds and was conducted in a highly unreasonable and degrading manner, leaving the accused fully naked for 15 minutes.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the evidence under s. 24(2) and dismissed the charge.