G. Roy

The applicant brought an application for a stay of proceedings, arguing his s. 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time was infringed.

The total delay from the charge date to the anticipated end of trial was 56.5 months.

After deducting 7 months for defence-caused delay and 14 months for exceptional circumstances related to the COVID-19 pandemic, the remaining delay was 35.5 months.

As this exceeded the 30-month presumptive ceiling for superior courts and the Crown advanced no argument on complexity, the court found the delay presumptively unreasonable.

The application was granted and the charges were stayed.

The offender was found guilty by a jury of attempting to import one kilogram of cocaine and attempting to possess it for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought a three-year custodial sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court considered extensive social context evidence detailing the offender's experiences with anti-Black racism, poverty, and systemic disadvantages.

Finding that her moral culpability was reduced by her minor role as a courier and her significant rehabilitative efforts, the court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, followed by three years of probation.

The accused was charged with drug trafficking offences.

Police, wishing to protect an ongoing wiretap investigation, directed a traffic officer to conduct a pretext traffic stop of the accused, lie about the reason for the stop, and attempt to obtain consent to search his vehicle.

The accused was not informed of the true reason for his detention or his right to counsel.

When the accused tossed a bag to his wife, multiple officers rushed him, resulting in a physical altercation and broken ribs.

The court found egregious breaches of sections 7, 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Charter.

Applying the Grant and Regan frameworks, the court concluded that the deliberate police planning to bypass Charter protections constituted an abuse of process.

A stay of proceedings was ordered for all counts.

Sentencing of three defendants involved in a drug project investigation.

Quan Chan Lao pleaded guilty to multiple counts of trafficking and conspiracy to traffic cocaine and methamphetamine, receiving a net global sentence of 5 years and 11 months after pre-trial custody credit.

Joseph Nestorovski was found guilty of conspiracy to traffic 1 kilogram of cocaine and sentenced to 6 years imprisonment.

Khuan Minh Mac was found guilty of conspiracy to traffic 2 kilograms of methamphetamine and sentenced to 7 years imprisonment.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence for serious drug offences.

The defendants applied for leave to cross-examine the affiant and sub-affiant on an application for authorization to intercept private communications, in the context of a Garofoli challenge.

They argued that investigative necessity had not been established and that police prematurely resorted to wiretap authorizations instead of pursuing conventional investigative techniques such as surveillance, informant development, and tracking orders.

The Crown opposed the request, submitting that the authorization materials fully described the investigative steps taken and that cross-examination was unnecessary.

The court held that there was no basis to permit cross-examination, noting there was no suggestion the affiant misled the authorizing judge and that the Garofoli review would proceed based on the existing materials.

The application for cross-examination was dismissed.

The accused brought an application seeking a stay of proceedings for unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter after approximately 34.5 months in custody awaiting trial on multiple drug and firearm trafficking charges arising from a large multi‑accused investigation.

Applying the framework from R. v. Morin and R. v. Askov, the court examined the allocation of delay between inherent time, defence actions, Crown conduct, and institutional delay.

The court found the prosecution involved complex multi‑accused proceedings, extensive disclosure, a preliminary inquiry including a Dawson application challenging wiretap authorizations, and multiple defence‑initiated adjournments and counsel changes.

Institutional delay was determined to be within acceptable limits and much of the elapsed time was attributable to inherent or defence‑related factors.

The applicant failed to establish significant prejudice beyond the normal hardships of pre‑trial custody.

The application for a stay of proceedings was therefore dismissed.