James D.M. Clark

Four appellants appealed their convictions, arguing that their Charter s. 11(b) rights to be tried within a reasonable time were violated due to unreasonable delay.

The application judges had dismissed their s. 11(b) applications, finding that despite delays exceeding the Jordan ceiling (18 months), the Crown had demonstrated the cases were complex and had a concrete plan to minimize delay.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judges' decisions, finding no reversible error in their assessment of the Crown's plan and the complexity of the cases.

This appeal concerned the admissibility of evidence seized during a warrantless police entry following an anonymous tip.

The appellant, charged with drug offences, alleged that police staged the break-in and that a specific detective was the anonymous caller, violating his s. 8 Charter rights.

Following a successful first appeal that clarified the Crown's persuasive burden to disprove state actor involvement in a warrantless search, a new trial was ordered.

The appellant appealed the second trial judge's decision to admit the evidence, arguing the judge again misapplied the burden of proof and relied on irrelevant considerations.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Crown had fulfilled its onus by providing additional evidence (cell phone records, whereabouts, voice samples) and that the trial judge's credibility findings, including accepting the officer's denials, were reasonable and open to her.

The appellants appealed a sentence imposed by the Superior Court of Justice.

The application judge declined to consider the issue of proportionality in relation to forfeiture.

The Crown argued that the factual findings made forfeiture the only available result.

The Court of Appeal disagreed, finding that the application judge was required to consider proportionality in accordance with s. 19.1(3) of the Criminal Code.

The court determined it was not in a position to conduct its own proportionality analysis given the multiple factors required to be considered under R. v. Craig.

The appeal was allowed and a new hearing on forfeiture was ordered.