D. Peterson

The accused brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter, alleging a violation of his right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b).

The accused faced three counts of sexual assault.

The total delay exceeded the 30-month presumptive ceiling.

The Crown argued that the delay was justified by exceptional circumstances, specifically the COVID-19 pandemic and unanticipated issues during the preliminary inquiry.

The court found that the Crown failed to establish that the pandemic or the preliminary inquiry issues caused the delay, attributing much of the delay to Crown inaction.

The application was granted and the charges were stayed.

The accused was charged with multiple counts arising from three break and enters at Subway restaurant locations over several days.

Surveillance footage, physical evidence, and DNA recovered from a balaclava linked the accused to the offences, while the accused testified denying involvement and suggesting innocent explanations for the evidence.

The court applied the credibility framework from R. v. W.(D.) and rejected the accused’s account.

After finding the accused responsible for one break and enter, the court admitted similar fact evidence due to striking similarities in timing, method, clothing, and tools used across the incidents.

The similarities and physical evidence established beyond a reasonable doubt that the same perpetrator committed all three break and enters.

During a trial for aggravated assault and assault arising from an altercation at a stag and doe party, the accused brought a Charter s. 7 application seeking a stay of proceedings.

They argued that the Crown's continued prosecution amounted to an abuse of process because the Crown's main witness was contradicted by other Crown witnesses.

The court dismissed the application, holding that the Crown's decision to proceed did not amount to flagrant impropriety and that it is the role of the trier of fact to assess conflicting evidence.