Guiseppe Cipriano

The accused brought a section 11(b) Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings on the grounds that her right to trial within a reasonable time had been violated.

The accused was charged with offences including trafficking in a Schedule II substance and firearm-related offences arising from a search warrant executed in March 2017.

The total delay from the swearing of the Information to the anticipated end of trial was 714 days (approximately 23 months and 12 days).

Applying the Jordan framework, the court calculated net delay of 600 days (20 months) after deducting defence delay.

The court found no exceptional circumstances, as the case was not particularly complex and there were no discrete events beyond the change of counsel.

The court granted the stay of proceedings.

The accused, a pharmacist charged with trafficking in Fentanyl, public mischief, fraud, and conspiracy to commit robbery, brought a Charter application alleging a breach of section 11(b) rights due to unreasonable delay.

The total delay from charge to anticipated end of trial was 28 months and 11 days.

The court applied the framework established in R. v. Jordan, which sets a presumptive ceiling of 18 months for Ontario Court of Justice trials.

After calculating defence delay at approximately 5.5 months, the net delay was approximately 23 months, exceeding the ceiling.

The Crown sought to justify the excess delay based on case complexity and transitional case considerations.

The court found the case was not particularly complex but accepted the transitional case exception, considering the institutional delays plaguing the Ottawa jurisdiction, the seriousness of the offences, prejudice to the accused, and the defence's lack of diligence in moving the case forward.

The application was dismissed and the case proceeded to trial as scheduled.

The defence brought a motion to admit video demonstration evidence showing a private investigator striking a new cribbage board against a cement pillar to demonstrate the force required to break the board.

The Crown opposed admission on grounds of lack of relevance and prejudicial effect.

The court excluded the evidence, finding that the video demonstration bore insufficient similarity to the facts at trial, lacked probative value due to material differences between the demonstration and the alleged incident, and was highly prejudicial because it raised speculative possibilities that could undermine the complainant's credibility without evidentiary foundation regarding the differences in materials and conditions.

The accused was charged with assault causing bodily harm and assault with a weapon (cribbage board) against a 15-year-old victim with learning disabilities.

During cross-examination, defence counsel produced a cribbage board and placed it in the witness's hand without warning, causing her severe emotional and physical distress.

The witness indicated she could answer questions about the board but could not continue with it present.

The trial judge restricted further presentation of the board to the witness while allowing cross-examination to continue.

Defence counsel subsequently brought an application for mistrial alleging reasonable apprehension of bias based on the trial judge's comments and rulings regarding the cribbage board.

The application was dismissed.