Jeanaha Kim

The accused, Alaelddein Alhajsalem, brought an application for a stay of proceedings due to a 17-day delay in his bail hearing, arguing a violation of sections 7, 9, and 11(e) of the Charter.

The Crown conceded a breach of section 11(e) but argued against a stay.

The court found the delay was caused by systemic issues in the Newmarket Bail Court, not related to the pandemic, and that a judicial admonition or sentence reduction would be inadequate.

Balancing the seriousness of the charges against the persistent systemic problem and the flagrant Charter breach, the court granted a stay of proceedings.

This judgment addresses the criminal responsibility of the accused, V.F.-P., for six counts of Arson Endangering Life under section 433 of the Criminal Code.

The sole issue at trial was whether the defence proved on a balance of probabilities that the accused was suffering from a mental disorder at the time of the offences, rendering her exempt from criminal responsibility under section 16(3) of the Criminal Code.

The court considered evidence of erratic behaviour, apparent intoxication (despite zero blood alcohol readings in prior similar incidents), and a history of mental health issues including suicide attempts and a diagnosis of Bipolar Mood Disorder.

Applying the holistic approach from R. v. Bouchard-Lebrun, the court found that the accused's actions stemmed from an underlying mental disorder, not transient self-induced states, and that her condition presented a recurring danger.

Consequently, the accused was found not criminally responsible.

The Crown sought an admissibility ruling for a statement given by the accused to police while he was handcuffed to a hospital bed recovering from injuries sustained in a house fire.

The accused, charged with first-degree murder and multiple counts of attempted murder, argued his statement was involuntary due to police persistence, oppression, and a breach of his right to silence.

The court found that the police conduct did not create a climate of compulsion or override the accused's free will.

The statement was ruled voluntary and admissible, with its probative value outweighing any prejudicial effect.