Alayna J. V. Woodley

The applicant child protection agency apprehended two young children.

The maternal grandmother, K.D.-M., sought to be added as a respondent and for the children to be placed in her care.

The agency and the children's mother opposed this, advocating for agency care with a plan to return the children to the mother, or placement with the father.

The court found that the agency improperly failed to name the maternal grandmother as a party, as she qualified as a "parent" under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act due to a Voluntary Service Agreement.

The court also determined that placing the children with the maternal grandmother, subject to supervision terms, was appropriate, as the risk of harm could be mitigated.

The maternal grandmother's motion was granted, and the children were ordered to be returned to her care.

The applicant was charged with three drug offences, including trafficking cocaine, by Information sworn on July 9, 2015.

The trial was scheduled for May 17, 2017, resulting in a total delay of 678 days (22.5 months).

The applicant brought a section 11(b) Charter application alleging a breach of his right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The court found that the net delay of 21 months exceeded the presumptive ceiling of 18 months for provincial court cases.

The Crown could not rebut the presumption of unreasonableness by demonstrating case complexity.

Additionally, the police failed to diligently execute the arrest warrant, remaining inactive for nine months despite the applicant being in custody with other police services.

The court found the delay unreasonable both under the new Jordan framework and under pre-Jordan law when applied contextually.

All charges were judicially stayed.

The accused was charged with possession of more than 30 grams of marijuana, possession of under 3 kilograms of marijuana for the purposes of trafficking, and trafficking.

Following a RIDE checkpoint stop where the officer detected a strong odour of marijuana, the accused's vehicle was searched and five one-pound bags of marijuana were found in the trunk.

The court found the accused guilty of possession and possession for the purpose of trafficking, but dismissed the trafficking charge due to lack of evidence of actual trafficking.

The court rejected Charter arguments regarding the lawfulness of the arrest and search, finding the officer had reasonable and probable grounds based on the odour of marijuana combined with other observations.

The court also found no breach of the right to counsel despite a brief delay in providing the caution.