Hinal Ghelani

The court granted a stay of proceedings under section 24(1) of the Charter after finding that the delay in bringing Christopher Vaughan to trial, while technically under the 30-month ceiling set by R. v. Jordan, was markedly longer than it reasonably should have been.

The delay was caused by a major disclosure failure by the Crown and chronic institutional delays in Brampton, as well as the Crown’s decision to prefer a direct indictment, which further prolonged the proceedings.

The court found that the Applicant had acted reasonably throughout and that the Crown was responsible for the delay.

The indictment was stayed.

On a pre-trial Charter motion arising from a firearm arrest in a parking lot, the applicant alleged racial profiling, unlawful investigative detention, unlawful search, and breaches of the right to counsel.

The court found that racial profiling played a role in the officer’s detention decision, rendering the detention contrary to s. 9 and the satchel search contrary to s. 8, while finding no s. 10(a) breach and a qualified s. 10(b) breach.

Applying the Grant framework, the court held the Charter-infringing conduct was serious, had a serious impact on the accused’s protected interests, and required exclusion of the firearm and ammunition evidence despite society’s interest in adjudication on the merits.

With the Crown electing to call no evidence, the charges were dismissed.

The Crown applied for an order permitting three designated undercover officers to testify remotely while wearing partial face masks during a preliminary hearing.

The Crown argued this was necessary due to the security risk posed by the ease of digital image capture in Zoom hearings, which could compromise the officers' anonymity and future undercover work in investigations involving criminal organizations.

Two defendants opposed, arguing existing protections were sufficient and that masks could hinder credibility assessment.

The court granted the Crown's application, finding the identified security risk was real and that the proposed measure balanced witness safety with the defendants' rights, noting that facial demeanor is of little value in preliminary hearings and that in-person witnesses during the pandemic often wear masks.