2 total
Appeal dismissed; 24-month deduction for COVID-19 jury trial suspension brought delay under the presumptive ceiling.
The appellant appealed his convictions for human trafficking-related offences, arguing that the application judge erred in dismissing his section 11(b) Charter application for unreasonable delay.
The Court of Appeal found that while the application judge double-counted a five-month period of defence delay, the error was immaterial because the deduction of 24 months for the suspension of jury trials due to the COVID-19 pandemic was appropriate.
As the total delay fell well under the 30-month presumptive ceiling and the Crown made efforts to move the matter forward, the exceptional remedy of a stay was not warranted.
The appeal was dismissed.
Convictions quashed; silence during police interview cannot be treated as tacit admission.
The appellant was convicted of sexual assault, sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and assault with a weapon against his stepdaughter and sentenced to 8 years' imprisonment.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred by treating the appellant's silence during a police interview as a "tacit admission" of guilt on the charges he did not explicitly deny.
This error was foundational, materially affecting the trial judge's assessment of both the appellant's and the complainant's credibility.
The court held that the right to silence, protected under s. 7 of the Charter, prohibits drawing an inference of guilt from an accused's choice to remain silent on some allegations while denying others.
The convictions were quashed and a new trial was ordered.
