David Vernon Rows

The accused faced five charges under the Criminal Code and two charges under the Youth Criminal Justice Act for historical allegations of assault, unlawful confinement, and sexual assault with a weapon spanning from 1995 to 1999.

The charges were laid in January 2011 but the trial was not scheduled to commence until April 2014, resulting in a delay of approximately 39 months.

The accused brought a motion for a stay of proceedings based on a violation of his Charter right under section 11(b) to be tried within a reasonable time.

The court found that 21.75 months of the delay was attributable to Crown, institutional, and other causes and was unreasonable, exceeding the guideline of 14 to 18 months for a two-stage process.

The court inferred prejudice from the length of delay and found that the accused had demonstrated a desire to resolve the matter expeditiously.

The court granted the stay of proceedings.

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding eighty milligrams contrary to section 253(1)(a) and (b) of the Criminal Code.

The court found that the arresting officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds to make a breath demand and should have first administered a roadside screening device.

The officer's observations—including no evidence of bad driving, unclear odour of alcohol, minimal gait irregularities, and normal speech—amounted only to reasonable suspicion.

The court found a breach of the accused's section 8 Charter rights and excluded the breath test results under section 24(2) of the Charter.

Both charges were dismissed.

The accused brought a Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings based on delay in completing his bail hearing, alleging violations of ss. 7, 9, and 11(e) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The accused argued that the justice of the peace and Crown prosecutor caused an unlawful adjournment exceeding the three‑day limit under s. 516 of the Criminal Code and demonstrated disregard for the accused’s liberty interests.

The court held that defence counsel consented to the adjournment and therefore no illegal adjournment occurred.

The court further found that neither the Crown prosecutor nor the justice of the peace acted improperly or breached the accused’s Charter rights.

Although the 32‑day duration of the bail hearing was unacceptable, it did not justify the extraordinary remedy of a stay of proceedings.