A. M. Morphew

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings for breach of his Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time under section 11(b).

The applicant was charged with fraud on March 6, 2024.

The Crown indicated an intention to prosecute the applicant jointly with a co-accused, but never formalized this by laying a joint information or obtaining a court order.

Trial dates were scheduled to conclude on November 21, 2025, approximately 20.5 months after charges were laid, exceeding the presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The court found that the Crown had reasonable alternatives available on February 11, 2025, to schedule the trial within the Jordan ceiling but failed to pursue them, instead accommodating the schedule of the co-accused's counsel who was not retained for trial.

The court granted the stay.

The applicant, S.B., sought a s. 525 bail review for serious charges including attempt murder and firearm offences, having been in custody for over 90 days without a bail hearing.

The defence proposed a release plan involving residential and back-up sureties, and electronic monitoring, citing COVID-19 risks and potential trial delays.

The Crown opposed, citing S.B.'s extensive criminal record, including 14 breach-type offences and a manslaughter conviction, and the overwhelming evidence against him.

The court found the proposed supervision plan insufficient to mitigate the substantial likelihood of S.B. reoffending and determined that his continued detention was necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice, despite the acknowledged risks of COVID-19 in correctional facilities and the possibility of trial delays.

The accused, Michael Ball, charged with first-degree murder, challenged the admissibility of a statement made to police.

Police staged a break-in at Ball's residence, removed firearms, and left a threatening note linking him to the murder.

Ball reported the break-in and the note, leading to an interview where he was cautioned but felt compelled to speak due to statutory obligations (reporting stolen firearms) and perceived threats.

The court found that police tactics, including creating an aura of violence and using statutory compulsion, breached Ball's s.7 Charter rights (right to silence, principle against self-incrimination).

The court concluded that admitting the statement would bring the administration of justice into disrepute under s.24(2) of the Charter.