Agapi Anthi Mavridis

The defendant, charged with second-degree murder, sought a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter due to unreasonable delay.

The total delay, even after accounting for a deduction for judicial illness, fell below the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The defence argued that despite being under the ceiling, the Crown's "culture of complacency" regarding disclosure and the overall timeline meant the case took "markedly longer than it should have." The court found that the defence failed to demonstrate "sustained efforts to expedite proceedings" and did not establish that the case took "markedly longer than it reasonably should have." The application for a stay was dismissed, with the court reiterating that stays below the Jordan ceiling are rare, particularly in homicide cases.

Mr. Walker pleaded guilty to operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content exceeding 80 mg and possession of a loaded, prohibited firearm.

For the firearm offence, a joint submission resulted in a two-year net prison term.

For the Over 80 offence, while counsel agreed on the minimum fine and driving prohibition, they disagreed on whether Mr. Walker should receive credit for a 14-month pre-sentence driving prohibition.

The court, applying the reasoning from R. v. Basque, granted the credit, finding that the common law discretion to credit pre-sentence driving prohibitions applies and that failing to do so would result in double punishment.

This judgment provides supplementary reasons for a not guilty verdict in a criminal trial involving charges of sexual assault and sexual touching.

The court found the complainant's account to be fabricated due to significant inconsistencies, the unlikelihood of the alleged events, and the complainant's documented mental health and behavioral issues.

The decision critically examines the police investigation, concluding it was not impartial or thorough, and highlights how the school board's directive hindered the disclosure of relevant evidence, thereby compromising investigative fairness.

The applicant, Kirk Matthew Fairley, sought to sever one count of assault (December 1, 2018) from five other counts (December 14, 2018) on an indictment, arguing potential prejudice from photographic evidence of the first assault.

The court applied the factors from R. v. Last to balance the risk of prejudice against the public interest in a single trial.

Despite acknowledging potential for impermissible propensity reasoning or credibility bolstering, the court found the factual nexus, lack of complexity, the accused's intention to testify on all counts, and administrative efficiency favored a joint trial.

The application to sever was dismissed, with the court noting that a clear jury instruction could mitigate prejudice.

The accused, Kenny Seegobinsingh, applied for a bail review after being detained following a bail hearing.

The application was based on two material changes in circumstances: new proposed sureties and the global COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found both constituted material changes, allowing for a de novo bail hearing.

Considering the new sureties' credible evidence and the amplified risks of COVID-19 in institutional settings, the court determined that the proposed strict house arrest plan would sufficiently reduce the risk of re-offending and would not undermine public confidence in the administration of justice, despite the serious nature of the break and enter charges.