Dennis Galiatsatos

The applicant, facing charges including robbery and use of an imitation firearm, sought a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter due to a 33-month delay from arrest to the anticipated end of trial.

The court applied the Jordan framework and found that after deducting defence delays and discrete events, the net delay was 26.9 months, which fell below the 30-month presumptive ceiling.

The court also conducted a transitional analysis under the Morin framework, concluding that the delay was not unreasonable given the complexity of the preliminary hearing and the applicant's tactical decisions.

The application for a stay was dismissed.

In a Crown appeal from acquittals on breaking and entering, assault, and drug offences, the Court held that the trial judge erred in the air-of-reality analysis for colour of right by relying on non-evidentiary propositions raised in cross-examination.

The error was material because it could have affected the acquittals on the February 1 breaking and entering counts and also tainted related self-defence and Charter s. 8 determinations.

The Court emphasized that subjective belief evidence must meet evidentiary rules, and that a possible colour-of-right inference does not itself establish a reasonable expectation of privacy on a balance of probabilities.

Although the February 18 counts were analytically distinct, the Court ordered one remedy across all counts.

The acquittals were set aside and a new trial was directed on all charges.

The appellant was acquitted at trial of operating a vehicle with a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit after the trial judge found that straddle evidence rebutted the statutory presumption under s. 258(1)(d.1) of the Criminal Code.

The Quebec Court of Appeal set aside the acquittal and substituted a conviction.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that straddle evidence is admissible to rebut the statutory presumption, applying the principles from R. v. Gibson.

The trial judge committed no legal error in finding the presumption rebutted and no palpable or overriding error in weighing the other indicia of impairment.

The acquittal was reinstated.