Caroline Tarjan

The defendant, Ranjit Singh, was charged with eight counts including assault, forcible confinement, and sexual assault against the complainant, S.K. The prosecution proceeded by indictment, and the defendant elected a trial in the Ontario Court of Justice.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of the complainant's testimony, considering circumstantial evidence and the absence of forensic evidence.

The court found the complainant's testimony to be entirely credible, plausible, and unshaken by cross-examination, rejecting the defendant's theories of fabrication.

The defendant was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on all eight counts.

The defendant, Ranjit Singh, brought a s. 11(b) Charter application alleging unreasonable delay in his criminal proceedings for assault, sexual assault, and forcible confinement.

The total delay was 24 months and 4 days.

The court calculated defence delay, finding 206 days attributable to the defendant, resulting in a net delay of 17.4 months, which is below the 18-month Jordan ceiling for provincial courts.

The court also found that the defendant failed to demonstrate meaningful steps to expedite the proceedings, thus failing the second branch of the Jordan test for delays below the ceiling.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, charged with impaired driving offences, brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter, alleging an infringement of his right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b).

The total delay from the laying of the Information to the anticipated end of trial was 1675 days.

After deducting 774 days of defence-caused delay and 210 days of exceptional circumstances due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the remaining net delay was 691 days (22.71 months).

As this exceeded the 18-month presumptive ceiling for the Ontario Court of Justice, the court found the delay unreasonable and granted a stay of proceedings.

A lawyer sought leave to intervene in an appeal of a costs decision that made adverse findings against him regarding his duty to the court and ordered his former client to pay substantial indemnity costs.

The underlying action had settled, rendering the appeal moot.

The court granted the lawyer leave to intervene, finding he had an interest in protecting his professional integrity, especially since his former client was relying on the costs decision in a separate collection action for legal fees.

The court also exercised its discretion to depart from the doctrine of mootness, finding that the issues regarding a lawyer's duty to the court and the costs consequences for a client were of public importance and could otherwise evade review.

The appeal was allowed to proceed on limited issues with amicus curiae appointed to argue the opposing position.

The appellant appealed a lower court's decision, challenging the admissibility of a recording and the finding that a joint tenancy had been severed.

The Court of Appeal rejected the argument regarding the recording's inadmissibility, finding it relevant and admissible.

The court also found no basis to interfere with the application judge's decision on joint tenancy severance, as it was a fact-specific inquiry.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded against the estate, noting the litigation was necessitated by the deceased's actions.