C. A. Morrow

The applicants, arrested in a large-scale police investigation, brought an abuse of process motion seeking a stay of proceedings due to systemic delays in holding their special bail hearings.

They argued that their section 11(e) Charter rights were violated, similar to the applicants in a previous case where a stay was granted.

The court found that while the applicants' rights were violated by the delays, the systemic problem in the jurisdiction had been largely rectified following the previous decision.

As the ongoing systemic delay had been addressed, a stay of proceedings was no longer necessary to protect the integrity of the justice system.

The application was dismissed, though the court noted the Charter violations could warrant a sentence reduction if the applicants are convicted.

The Crown applied under s. 752.1(1) of the Criminal Code for a 60-day remand of the respondent for a psychological assessment at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.

The respondent had been found guilty of two counts of robbery and two counts of conspiracy to commit robbery, which are designated serious personal injury offences.

The Crown sought the assessment on the grounds that there were reasonable grounds to believe the respondent might be found to be a dangerous or long-term offender, citing a pattern of repetitive behaviour based on his extensive criminal record, including prior robberies and a home invasion.

The court found that the threshold of "reasonable possibility" was met, given the respondent's history of criminal activity and the similarities in his past and current offences, which involved planning, co-accused, and threats of violence.

The application for the assessment was granted.

The accused brought a motion to challenge prospective jurors for cause under s. 638(1)(b) of the Criminal Code on the basis of potential racial bias and pretrial publicity.

The defence proposed multiple-choice versions of the traditional Parks question and an additional question regarding stereotypes about Black men.

The court reviewed the jurisprudence on challenges for cause, including the requirement to demonstrate a realistic potential for juror partiality.

The court declined to permit the multiple-choice format and rejected the stereotype question due to insufficient evidentiary basis.

Instead, the court approved modified questions addressing racial bias and exposure to publicity, requiring jurors to answer in their own words.