The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual interference and exposing his genitals to a minor, challenging the trial judge's dismissal of his s. 11(b) Charter stay application and his s. 278 application for production of the complainant's counselling records.
The Superior Court of Justice upheld the trial judge's calculation of delay, including the finding that a judge's conflict of interest constituted an exceptional circumstance, and agreed the case did not warrant a stay below the Jordan ceiling.
The court also found no error in the trial judge's refusal to order production of the counselling records, as the appellant failed to establish likely relevance.
The appeal was dismissed.
