The applicants sought a stay of criminal proceedings for sexual abuse charges, arguing that significant pre-charge delay amounted to an abuse of process and violated their Charter rights (sections 7, 11(b), 11(d)).
The charges stemmed from investigations in 2002-2004 that were closed without charges, but re-opened in 2017-2018 based on new disclosures from complainants.
The court applied the three-stage test for abuse of process from Piccirilli, considering prejudice to a fair trial or the justice system's integrity, alternative remedies, and a balancing of interests.
The court found no state misconduct or intentional delay, and accepted that the 2018 charges were based on new evidence.
It concluded that the interests of justice required the charges to proceed to trial, dismissing the applications for a stay.
