Amita Persad-Ford

This decision addresses a Charter challenge to the validity of a search warrant issued under section 487 of the Criminal Code, focusing on whether the affiant met the duty of full, fair, and frank disclosure in the Information to Obtain (ITO).

The court analyzed material omissions and misstatements in the ITO, including failure to disclose surveillance results, geographic origins of IP addresses, and pending production order results.

The affiant’s conduct was scrutinized for good faith, with the court finding that while there was no deliberate intent to mislead, the cumulative omissions undermined the integrity of the warrant process.

The warrant was ultimately quashed, and evidence excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter to preserve the justice system’s integrity.

The prosecutor sought a material witness warrant under s. 705 of the Criminal Code for Niloshan Selvakumanran, also known as Neal Kumar, who failed to attend court despite being subpoenaed.

The defendant opposed, questioning the identity of the witness and the reliability of the evidence.

The court found that the subpoena was properly served, the witness's identity was sufficiently established, and the witness possessed material evidence.

Consequently, the court issued a material witness warrant for the arrest of the witness.

The defendant brought a s. 11(b) Charter application for unreasonable delay.

The total delay was 788 days (25 months and 25 days).

The court deducted 219 days attributable to defence delay, resulting in a net delay of 569 days (18.7 months), which exceeded the 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial court trials under R. v. Jordan.

The Crown did not justify the delay.

The court found the defendant's s. 11(b) right was breached and stayed the charges.

The applicant, Gurjit Dosanjh, sought a review of a detention order issued by a justice of the peace after a bail hearing for possessing a loaded firearm.

The Superior Court found that the bail justice erred by excessively focusing on the release plan and surety suitability, and by failing to adequately consider the weakness of the Crown's case, which lacked evidence connecting the applicant directly to the firearm.

The court emphasized that even in reverse onus situations, the strength of the Crown's allegations must inform the required release plan.

The application was granted, and the applicant was released.

The appellant, Matthew Priestley-Campbell, appealed his conviction for failing to comply with an Approved Screening Device (ASD) demand under s. 320.15(1) of the Criminal Code.

He alleged errors by the trial judge regarding the proof of the ASD's possession, credibility assessment of witnesses, and a s. 10(b) Charter violation.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial judge's findings that the officer's testimony was sufficient to prove ASD possession, her credibility assessment was reasonable, and there was no Charter breach.

The Crown appealed a decision staying sexual offence charges against the respondent for unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The total delay was under the 18-month presumptive ceiling.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the application judge erred by failing to attribute a 42-day period to defence delay when the defence rejected earlier trial dates offered by the Crown.

The Court also found that the application judge erred in his under-the-ceiling analysis by failing to properly consider local circumstances in Brampton, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the Crown's proactive steps to secure earlier dates.

The appeal was allowed, the stay was set aside, and the matter was remitted for trial.

The applicant, charged with having excess blood alcohol, applied for a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay under the *R. v. Jordan* framework.

The court determined the total delay by including a 28-day pre-charge period, resulting in 19 months and 4 days.

After subtracting 62 days of defence delay, the net delay was 17 months and 2 days, which is below the 18-month presumptive ceiling.

However, the court found that the applicant demonstrated meaningful steps to expedite the proceedings and that the case took "markedly longer" than it should have for a straightforward two-day trial, even considering the court's busy schedule and the pandemic's impact.

The application for a stay was granted.

The accused, Amandeep Malhi, applied to stay criminal proceedings for assault and threats, alleging unreasonable delay under section 11(b) of the Charter, citing a total delay of 19 months.

The court, applying the *Jordan* framework, found the net delay to be approximately 17 months and 1 week after deducting time attributable to the defence's inaction regarding disclosure and trial date setting.

As the net delay was below the 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial court, the onus was on the defence to show the case took markedly too long and that they made meaningful and sustained efforts to expedite.

The court found the defence failed to demonstrate sustained efforts, particularly by rejecting the Crown's willingness to set dates before full disclosure and by delaying communication with the trial coordinator.

The application to stay proceedings was dismissed.