Cameron Rogers

The accused, J.C., brought a mid-trial application under section 11(b) of the Charter, alleging unreasonable delay.

The total delay was 20 months and 4 days, exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial court matters set by R. v. Jordan.

The Crown argued that some delay was attributable to the defence or exceptional circumstances due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found no waiver or attributable delay by the defence, noting Crown disclosure delays and prioritization of other matters.

The court also rejected the argument that pandemic-related backlog constituted an exceptional circumstance in this case, as the direct impacts had abated and the time to obtain trial dates was not inordinate.

The application was granted, and the charge was stayed.

The defendant, Trevor Henry, pled guilty to careless driving causing death and bodily harm under the Highway Traffic Act.

The collision resulted in the death of Nancy Fleming and life-altering injuries to William Fleming.

The court considered sentencing principles of deterrence, proportionality, and restraint, along with aggravating factors (devastating impact on victims' family) and mitigating factors (guilty plea, remorse, no prior similar driving offences).

The court imposed a global sentence of 45 days intermittent imprisonment, a 2-year non-reporting probation order, and a 2-year driver's licence suspension, emphasizing that the sentence denounces the driving conduct and serves general and specific deterrence.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and luring a person under 16.

The luring charge was dismissed by the Crown.

The court dismissed the invitation to sexual touching charge, finding no positive act of invitation by the accused.

However, the court found the accused guilty of sexual assault and sexual interference, accepting the complainant's testimony despite her perceived lack of detail, and rejecting the defence's argument that her testimony was unreliable based on ungrounded common-sense assumptions about how a complainant should act.

The court applied the rules against ungrounded common-sense assumptions and stereotypical inferences in assessing credibility.