3 total
The young person's application for a stay of proceedings for unreasonable delay was dismissed due to significant defence delay and the COVID-19 pandemic.
The accused, A.A., brought an application for a stay of criminal charges under s. 11(b) of the Charter, alleging a violation of the right to trial within a reasonable time, citing the R. v. Jordan framework.
The total delay from arrest to anticipated trial end was 28.8 months, exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial courts.
The court analyzed periods of delay attributable to the defence's inefficiency and indifference (12.5 months) and recognized the COVID-19 pandemic as an exceptional circumstance not attributable to the Crown.
Deducting defence delay, the net delay was 16.3 months, which, even with a margin of error, was deemed permissible considering the pandemic's impact.
The application for a stay was dismissed.
The 15-day deadline to exercise an option on a provincial offence notice is strict and cannot be extended by time calculation rules excluding holidays.
The appellant appealed a conviction for speeding (120 km/h in a 100 km/h zone) that was entered by way of section 9 of the Provincial Offences Act after the appellant failed to respond.
The appellant argued that the time calculation rules under the Ontario Court Provincial Division rules should apply to extend the 15-day deadline for exercising an option on the offence notice, accounting for the Family Day holiday.
The court rejected this argument, holding that "exercising an option" is distinct from "notices to be given or delivered" and that the 15-day period is strict and cannot be extended by the time calculation provisions.
The appeal was dismissed.
Accused permitted to re-elect mode of trial because designated counsel failed to file written documentation.
The accused applied to re-elect his mode of trial from the Ontario Court of Justice to the Superior Court composed of a judge and jury.
The accused was charged with serious criminal offences including sexual assault, sexual interference, child pornography, and drug-related offences against his granddaughter.
The court granted the application, finding that the failure to file proper documentation under the Criminal Code was fatal to the original election.
The court also ordered that the complainant testify via closed-circuit television at the preliminary inquiry.
