J. Bray

The accused brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter, alleging a violation of his s. 11(b) right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The total delay from charge to the anticipated end of trial was 22.5 months, exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling for the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Crown argued that exceptional circumstances, including the COVID-19 pandemic and the time required to vet a search warrant involving a confidential informant, justified the delay.

The court rejected these arguments, finding that the primary cause of the delay was the police's unacceptable and apathetic approach to providing disclosure.

After deducting 89 days for continuing trial dates and 9 days for officer illness, the net delay remained over 19 months.

The application was granted and a stay of proceedings was ordered.

The defendants, DaimlerChrysler Services Canada Inc. and Daimler Chrysler Financial Services Canada Inc., brought four motions for summary judgment in four related actions arising from a fatal motor vehicle accident.

They argued the actions against them were statute-barred because they were commenced outside the applicable limitation periods under the Limitations Act, 2002 and the Trustee Act.

The plaintiffs had initially sued the driver as the owner based on a police accident report, only discovering later that DaimlerChrysler was the true owner.

The court dismissed the motions for summary judgment, finding that the plaintiffs exercised reasonable diligence in relying on the police report and the driver's statement of defence admitting ownership.

For the Trustee Act claims, the court found special circumstances existed to allow the claims to proceed despite the expiration of the limitation period, noting the lack of prejudice to DaimlerChrysler.