3 total
Seven‑year delay largely attributable to defence; Charter stay refused.
The accused applied for a stay of proceedings alleging violations of ss. 7 and 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms arising from an alleged seven‑year delay in prosecuting a charge of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.
The court applied the framework from R. v. Morin to assess whether the delay was unreasonable.
After accounting for waivers and extensive delay attributable to the accused and his counsel—including attempts to transfer the matter to another jurisdiction and failures to attend court—the court concluded that over four years of the delay was caused by the defence.
The remaining delay was within the upper range of acceptability and did not amount to a breach of the accused’s right to be tried within a reasonable time.
The court also rejected the allegation that the Crown’s refusal to pursue a proposed resolution constituted an abuse of process under s. 7 because no binding agreement was proven.
Stay of proceedings motion alleging Charter delay and abuse of process dismissed.
The accused brought a motion seeking a stay of proceedings alleging violations of the right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter and the right to life, liberty, and security of the person under s. 7.
The motion also alleged an abuse of process arising from the Crown’s repudiation of a resolution agreement previously reached between the parties.
The court dismissed the application for a stay of proceedings.
Detailed reasons for the dismissal were to be provided at a later date.
Accused found guilty of child luring based on circumstantial computer and cell phone evidence.
The accused was charged with communicating with a person under 18 for the purpose of facilitating a sexual assault after a 15-year-old complainant received solicitations via Kijiji.
The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including IP address logs, computer key logger data, and cell phone records linking the offending email address and phone number to the accused.
The court found that the cumulative effect of the circumstantial evidence, including the accused's access to the specific computers and his connection to the cell phone used, proved his identity as the sender beyond a reasonable doubt.
The accused was found guilty.
