A. Karapancev

The accused was charged with robbery and wearing a disguise with intent following a convenience store robbery.

The Crown's case on identity relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, specifically surveillance video and matching clothing found in an apartment and a vehicle linked to the accused.

The court applied the test for circumstantial evidence and concluded that the only reasonable inference was that the accused was one of the robbers.

The accused was found guilty of robbery but acquitted of wearing a disguise due to lack of evidence.

The applicant, charged with fraud and related offences, brought a motion for a stay of proceedings under section 24(1) of the Charter, alleging a breach of her right to be tried within a reasonable time under section 11(b).

The total delay from the date of charges to the anticipated end of trial was over 35 months.

The court applied the Jordan framework to determine whether periods of delay caused by defence counsel's unavailability should be deducted as defence delay.

The court concluded that certain periods of unavailability for rescheduled preliminary inquiry and trial dates constituted defence delay, reducing the net delay to 27 months.

As the net delay fell below the 30-month presumptive ceiling, the application for a stay was dismissed.