Helen How

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter due to a net delay of over 40 months since the information was laid.

The Crown argued the delay was justified by the case's complexity and the exceptional circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found the case was not particularly complex and that the pandemic did not justify a delay of nearly a year beyond the Jordan ceiling, especially given institutional unresponsiveness to the applicant's inquiries for earlier trial dates.

The application was granted and the proceedings were stayed.

The Crown applied to remove defence counsel on the basis that counsel had a realistic prospect of becoming a witness at the accused's upcoming murder trial.

Counsel had interviewed a potential alternate suspect alone and was personally involved in discovering a piece of physical evidence (a crutch) allegedly linked to the murder.

The court granted the application, finding a realistic risk that counsel would need to testify to rehabilitate the witness or explain the discovery of the evidence, which would compromise his role as an advocate.

Consequently, the court granted the defence's application to adjourn the trial.

The court denied the accused's application for bail, finding detention necessary on primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds given his extensive criminal record and history of failing to appear.