Henry Limheng

A young person charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by a drug brought a section 11(b) Charter motion alleging a violation of the right to trial within a reasonable time.

The Crown conceded the case was subject to the Jordan framework and that the total delay was approximately 19 months.

The court found no defence delay attributable to the applicant and determined that the case took markedly longer than it reasonably should have due to late disclosure of critical evidence, including a Centre of Forensic Sciences Report and a Drug Recognition Examination video.

The court granted the motion and stayed the charge.

The appellant appealed two sentences imposed for convictions under s. 2(1)(a) of the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act.

The first conviction arose from operating an uninsured motor vehicle in 2012, with a fine of $20,000 imposed in absentia in 2013.

The second conviction arose from operating an uninsured motor vehicle in 2013, with a fine of $25,000 and a six-month driving suspension imposed in absentia in 2014.

The court found errors in principle: the sentencing courts failed to consider the appellant's ability to pay and failed to account for the substantial fifteen-year gap between the appellant's prior convictions in the 1990s and the current offences.

The court reduced the fines and applied s. 59(2) of the Provincial Offences Act to provide mitigation based on exceptional circumstances, including the appellant's struggle with alcoholism and limited financial means.