David Fisher

The defendants sought an order compelling the plaintiff to attend a further examination for discovery, arguing that his psychological condition had substantially deteriorated since the initial discovery.

The plaintiff opposed, asserting that any changes were merely in symptoms, not the underlying condition, and that further examination was unnecessary given the production of updated medical records.

The court found that the plaintiff's post-discovery diagnosis of PTSD, suicidal ideations, and admission to hospital on a Form 1 constituted a substantial deterioration and exceptional circumstances warranting a further examination.

The accused, charged with attempted murder and firearms offences, applied for a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code.

He sought to vacate a detention order based on a new supervision plan involving two sureties and a radio frequency ankle bracelet.

The court applied the Palmer test for new evidence and found that the proposed plan did not represent a material change in circumstances, as the sureties would leave the accused unsupervised during work hours and the ankle bracelet would not prevent re-offending.

The court concluded that detention remained justified on the secondary and tertiary grounds.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants sought a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging their right to trial within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) had been breached.

The case involved charges of kidnapping, extortion, and assault arising from a violent abduction.

The court conducted a detailed Morin analysis of delay, allocating periods to inherent requirements, defence delay, institutional delay, and Crown delay, including delay caused by a mistrial following disclosure failures.

The court determined that total Crown and institutional delay amounted to approximately 14 months and 27 days, falling within the Morin guidelines.

Although some prejudice was established, it did not reach the level required to justify a constitutional remedy, and the seriousness of the offences weighed strongly in favour of a trial on the merits.