Craig Penney

The accused, Jerome Kaell, brought an application to stay proceedings for unreasonable delay, arguing that the 18-month presumptive ceiling under R. v. Jordan applied to his case.

Kaell had initially elected trial in the superior court, was committed there, and then re-elected to the provincial court without a preliminary inquiry.

The central issue was whether the 18-month or 30-month Jordan ceiling applied.

The court held that once a case is committed to the superior court and the 30-month ceiling crystallizes, it does not revert to 18 months upon re-election to the provincial court.

The court also found that the delay occasioned by the re-election was attributable to the defence.

Consequently, the application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.

The defendant challenged the validity of a second information alleging impaired driving and driving with excess blood alcohol, arguing it was a nullity and constituted an abuse of process in violation of section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Crown had requested that police lay an additional impaired driving charge alongside the original over-80 charge.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the second information was valid, that the procedure followed by Peel Regional Police and the Crown Attorney's Office complied with the Criminal Code, and that no abuse of process occurred.

The court upheld the practical arrangement between police and Crown as a reasonable response to high case volumes while maintaining statutory compliance.

The accused was charged with sexual assault against a co-worker following an incident on August 24, 2012, near a transit station in Toronto.

The Crown alleged the accused kissed the complainant without consent, placed his hand down her pants, and put her breast in his mouth.

The accused testified the encounter was consensual, initiated by the complainant.

The trial judge found the complainant's evidence was tainted by significant alcohol consumption, her inability to recall certain statements, and a prior inconsistent statement to her common-law partner regarding touching that allegedly occurred inside the bar.

The accused's evidence was not undermined in cross-examination.

The judge concluded the Crown failed to prove non-consensual touching beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused.