Daniel Gordon Goldbloom

On a criminal appeal from the Court of Appeal for Ontario, the appellant challenged an order staying proceedings.

The Supreme Court heard the appeal and delivered oral judgment the same day.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the stay order, and remitted the matter for trial.

Reasons were stated to follow.

The appellant appealed convictions for accessing child pornography, arguing an infringement of his s. 11(b) Charter right to a trial within a reasonable time.

The appeal court applied the R. v. Jordan framework, finding that the net delay, after deducting defence-caused delay and exceptional circumstances (judicial scheduling conflict, judge's unilateral shortening of trial), fell below the 18-month ceiling for the Ontario Court of Justice.

The court also determined that the one-month period for deliberation was defence delay due to counsel's scheduling conflict.

Consequently, the transitional exceptional circumstance was not applicable, and the appeal was dismissed.

The accused, DY, was charged with administering a noxious substance (cocaine), invitation to sexual touching, and trafficking cocaine involving his 11-year-old great-niece, TY.

The Crown withdrew a charge of criminal negligence causing bodily harm.

The court admitted videotaped interviews of the complainant and allowed her to testify outside the courtroom with a support person.

The central issue was the credibility and reliability of the complainant's testimony.

The defence argued that the complainant self-administered the cocaine and fabricated the sexual touching allegations under her mother's influence.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and consistent, rejecting the defence's theories.

The court found the accused guilty on all three counts, concluding that he caused the complainant to take cocaine with intent to aggrieve or annoy, invited her to sexual touching, and trafficked cocaine.