The accused faced multiple historical sexual assault charges and brought a motion seeking a stay of proceedings under ss. 7 and 11(b) of the Charter based on delay.
The parties sought directions on whether the stay application should be argued before trial or during the jury trial.
The court held that, absent unusual circumstances, motions for a stay based on unreasonable delay should generally be heard prior to trial.
Because the defence relied on an inference of prejudice and there was an adequate evidentiary record, the court directed that the Charter motion be argued in advance of trial.
