Colin McMorrow

The Crown appealed an acquittal, arguing the trial judge erred in law by failing to conclude that a recording of the complainant was made for a sexual purpose and misapprehended evidence regarding sexualized conversations.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge acquitted the accused based on a reasonable doubt as to whether the accused intended to make *any* recording, not merely whether the purpose was sexual.

The court held that the trial judge's misapprehension of evidence was not material to the outcome and that the factual findings and inferences drawn were reasonable, warranting deference.

The accused, Sean Leblond, applied for a stay of proceedings under ss. 11(b) and 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms due to unreasonable delay in his trial for five sexual offences.

The total delay from information sworn to estimated trial end was 1305 days (43 months), exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling for superior courts as per R. v. Jordan.

The court analyzed six periods of potential defence delay and exceptional circumstances.

After deducting 341 days of defence delay and 95 days for an unexpectedly prolonged preliminary inquiry (characterized as a discrete event), the net delay was calculated at 869 days (28.5 months), falling below the presumptive ceiling.

The court found the Crown failed to prove readiness to proceed for one period of alleged defence delay.

Consequently, the application for a stay was dismissed.