E. Brosh

This decision addresses a Charter application in a case involving impaired driving charges against Francisco Osorio.

The court considered alleged breaches of sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter related to the timing and administration of a Standardized Field Sobriety Test (SFST), the grounds for arrest and breath demand, the failure to provide an interpreter, and the length of detention.

The court found the SFST demand was timely and lawful, no Charter breach arose from the administration protocols or reliance on the SFST results despite the defendant's medical condition (BPPV), and no breach occurred regarding the interpreter or detention length.

The impaired operation charge was dismissed due to reasonable doubt, but the blood alcohol concentration charge was upheld.

Joaquim Batista, a surety, sought to set aside a $5000 bail recognizance forfeiture order made in his absence due to a miscommunication with the Crown.

The Crown argued the court was functus officio and there was no right of appeal.

The court held that the functus officio doctrine must be applied flexibly where no right of appeal exists, especially when a party was denied the opportunity to be heard.

The forfeiture order was set aside, and the Crown was permitted to renew its application.

A young person, C.L., charged with sexual assault, brought an application to stay proceedings due to a breach of their s. 11(b) Charter right to a trial within a reasonable time.

The total delay of 29 months exceeded the 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial court trials.

The Crown argued that court staff shortages, which caused significant trial delays and courtroom closures, constituted an "exceptional circumstance" to rebut the presumption of unreasonableness.

The court found that while a period of delay due to the complainant's illness was an exceptional circumstance, the systemic and long-standing issue of staff shortages was not "reasonably unforeseen or reasonably unavoidable" and was within the state's control.

As the Crown failed to provide justification or demonstrate meaningful action to rectify the problem, the court concluded that the staff shortages did not qualify as an exceptional circumstance.

Consequently, C.L.'s s. 11(b) Charter rights were violated, and the proceedings were stayed.