Alfred Anthony Mamo

The accused, E.F., applied for a mistrial following his conviction for sexual assault and assault, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.

The court dismissed the application, finding that trial counsel provided meaningful assistance and that the alleged deficiencies did not compromise trial fairness or lead to a miscarriage of justice.

The court emphasized the high bar for granting a mistrial on this ground, the strong presumption of counsel competence, and that tactical decisions by counsel, even if questionable in hindsight, do not necessarily constitute ineffective assistance.

The court also found the applicant's testimony regarding his dissatisfaction with counsel and lack of preparation to be inconsistent and undermined his credibility.

A young person, A.S.L., was charged with multiple counts of sexual assault.

The defence brought a motion for a stay of proceedings due to undue delay under section 11(b) of the Charter.

The total delay from charge to anticipated trial conclusion exceeded the 18-month ceiling for provincial court matters.

The court found that the majority of the delay was attributable to the Crown's failure to provide timely disclosure, despite repeated requests from the defence.

While 30 days of delay were attributed to the defence for not raising all pre-trial motions at the first judicial pre-trial, this was insufficient to bring the net delay below the ceiling.

The Crown's argument that the COVID-19 pandemic constituted an exceptional circumstance was rejected, as the Crown could have mitigated the delay by providing disclosure earlier.

As the Crown failed to rebut the presumption of unreasonable delay, a stay of proceedings was granted.

A young person, A.S.L., charged with three counts of sexual assault involving two complainants (GR and MD) and one count of breaching release terms, applied for severance of the counts related to GR from the count related to MD.

The court considered factors for severance, including the risk of prejudice to the accused, the lack of factual nexus between the allegations, and the limited efficiency gained by a joint trial.

The court found that the interests of justice required severance due to the risk of prejudice and the distinct nature of the allegations.