Craig T. Rogers

The applicant, a former romantic partner of the respondent, sought temporary access to the respondent's child, Luna, with whom the applicant had a caregiving relationship for approximately 10 months.

The respondent opposed access.

The court dismissed the motion for temporary access, finding that the applicant did not meet the onus to prove that access was in the child's best interest, particularly given the significant period of non-contact and the lack of a detailed access proposal.

The court emphasized that a non-parent does not have a presumptive right to access and that the custodial parent's right to make decisions should be respected in the absence of evidence of inability to act in the child's best interests.

The accused brought an application under ss. 11(b) and 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms seeking dismissal of drug trafficking charges for unreasonable delay.

Approximately 27 months had elapsed between the laying of charges and the scheduled trial date.

The court applied the framework from R. v. Morin and considered the length of delay, waiver, reasons for delay, and prejudice to the accused.

The court found that the majority of the delay constituted inherent time requirements of the case, and that the remaining delay—largely attributable to witness availability and scheduling issues—amounted to approximately eight months.

Although some prejudice was inferred and partially established, the delay fell within acceptable limits and was outweighed by society’s interest in adjudicating serious criminal charges on their merits.