3 total
The court granted a stay of proceedings under section 11(b) due to unreasonable Crown delay caused by late disclosure in a health privacy prosecution.
The defendant was charged with nine counts of wilfully collecting and using personal health information without authority under the Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004.
The defendant brought Charter applications under section 11(b) for unreasonable delay and under section 7 for abuse of process and selective prosecution.
The court found a violation of section 11(b) due to Crown delay of 16 months and 10 days, which exceeded the Morin guidelines by 6 months and 10 days.
The court found actual and inferred prejudice to the defendant.
The court rejected the section 7 application, finding no abuse of process.
A stay of proceedings was granted pursuant to section 11(b) and section 24(1) of the Charter.
Crown appeal allowed and new trial ordered due to failure to consider s. 24(2) of the Charter.
The Crown appealed an acquittal from an in absentia trial.
The Court of Appeal held that both the trial judge and the summary conviction appeal judge erred by failing to consider section 24(2) of the Charter when addressing the Charter issues.
The appeal was allowed, the judgments below were set aside, and a new trial was ordered.
No costs of appeal awarded due to respondent's offer to settle; partial costs awarded for application.
In supplementary reasons regarding costs, the Court of Appeal considered offers to settle made by both parties.
Despite the appellant's success on the appeal, the court ordered no costs of the appeal because the respondent's offer to settle was almost identical to the appeal result.
For the application, considering the appellant's misconduct and the various offers, the court ordered no costs to either party up to November 1, 1999, and party-and-party costs to the respondent thereafter.
