C. Conron

The applicant, facing charges related to the exploitation of migrant workers, brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, alleging unreasonable delay.

The total time from the charges to the anticipated end of the trial was calculated at 39.39 months.

The court deducted periods of defence delay, largely attributable to scheduling challenges in a joint prosecution, and periods of exceptional circumstances caused by the COVID-19 pandemic backlog.

The net delay was calculated at 28.33 months, which fell below the 30-month presumptive ceiling.

The application was dismissed.

The Crown applied under s. 486.2(2) of the Criminal Code for an order permitting the adult complainant in a sexual assault trial to testify via closed-circuit television (CCTV).

The court reviewed a videotaped statement of the complainant and considered the factors under s. 486.2(3).

The court found that while the complainant could likely testify in the courtroom, permitting her to testify via CCTV would facilitate the giving of a full and candid account.

The application was granted.

The accused was charged with human trafficking, procuring, unlawful confinement, and assault relating to her relationship with a 20-year-old woman with an intellectual disability.

The Crown alleged the accused forced the complainant into prostitution, controlled her finances, and physically assaulted her.

The court found the complainant's evidence to be internally inconsistent and unreliable.

The court concluded the complainant voluntarily engaged in prostitution and was not controlled or threatened by the accused.

The accused was acquitted of all charges.

The accused was scheduled for a Charter application regarding voluntariness, but the provided Laotian interpreter was not accredited.

Noting the fundamental rights conferred by section 14 of the Charter and the pressures of trial delays, the court adjourned the application to the start of the trial and directed the administration of justice to ensure a properly accredited interpreter is made available.

The applicant, John Porter, facing charges of accessing child pornography, brought a motion alleging violations of his rights under sections 7 and 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

He sought the exclusion of evidence seized under a search warrant and a stay of proceedings due to pre-charge delay.

The court dismissed the section 8 claim, finding the search warrant validly issued despite a significant time lapse between the alleged offence and the warrant's execution, distinguishing the case from R. v. Morelli.

The court also dismissed the section 7 claim, concluding that the pre-charge delay was justified by police prioritization of higher-risk cases and did not constitute an abuse of process or impair the applicant's ability to make full answer and defence.