Fraud charges stayed due to 75-month delay caused primarily by Crown's failure to disclose documents.
The applicant, charged with seven counts of fraud over $5,000, brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, arguing that the 75-month delay from the laying of charges to the anticipated end of trial was unreasonable.
The applicant also sought a stay for abuse of process under s. 7, alleging the criminal charges were used to extort civil restitution, and sought to exclude forensic accounting evidence due to alleged conflicts of interest.
The court dismissed the abuse of process and conflict of interest claims, finding the police conducted an independent investigation.
However, the court granted the s. 11(b) application, finding that the Crown's obstinate refusal to disclose 90 boxes of relevant documents caused over three years of Crown and institutional delay.
Concluding that the delay was unreasonable and caused prejudice to the applicant, the court stayed the charges.
Proceedings stayed under s. 11(b) of the Charter due to unreasonable delay caused by Crown's joinder.
The applicants, charged with extortion and uttering death threats, brought an application to stay the proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, arguing unreasonable delay.
The total delay from arrest to the anticipated end of trial was over 4.5 years.
The court found that the Crown's decision to jointly indict the applicants with subsequently charged co-accused caused significant and avoidable delay, particularly since the Crown did not seek a direct indictment to expedite the process.
The court concluded that the applicants suffered prejudice to their liberty and security interests, and the delay was unreasonable.
The proceedings were stayed.
