Jeff A. Marshman

The self-represented applicant, facing serious fraud-related charges in a lengthy jury trial, suffered a severe cardiac event during the trial.

Medical evidence from his cardiologists indicated a 100% blockage of a main artery and recommended two to three months of rest to avoid a potentially fatal heart attack.

The court granted the motion for a mistrial, finding that continuing the trial posed a serious risk to the applicant's health and his ability to make full answer and defence.

The applicant agreed to waive any s. 11(b) Charter arguments arising from the delay.

Les requérants, accusés de fraude et de parjure, ont présenté une motion en vertu de l'alinéa 11(b) de la Charte pour obtenir un arrêt des procédures en raison de délais déraisonnables.

Le délai total anticipé entre le dépôt des accusations et la fin du procès était de plus de 50 mois.

Après avoir déduit les délais imputables à la défense, le délai net dépassait le plafond de 30 mois établi par l'arrêt Jordan.

La Cour a conclu que le dossier était d'une complexité particulière justifiant les délais excédentaires, compte tenu du volume de la preuve, du nombre de témoins, de la tenue d'un procès conjoint et bilingue devant jury, et de la nature des accusations.

La motion a été rejetée.

The appellant appealed his convictions for two counts of assault and one count of sexual assault arising from incidents in a domestic relationship.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the complainant's testimony, which the appellant denied.

The appeal raised three grounds: whether the trial judge erred in failing to instruct the jury on the limited use of prior consistent statements; whether the trial judge erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the defence of mistaken belief in consent; and whether the trial judge erred in refusing to admit evidence of other sexual activity between the appellant and the complainant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal and the sentence appeal.

The appellant appealed his conviction for two counts of production of marijuana and the dismissal of his Charter s. 11(b) application for a stay of proceedings based on unreasonable delay.

The total delay from charge to conviction was 60 months, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

However, the Court of Appeal found that when delay caused by defence conduct and express waivers was subtracted, the net delay was 23 months, below the presumptive ceiling.

The court also found that even if the net delay exceeded the ceiling, exceptional circumstances (two mistrials) and the transitional provisions of Jordan would justify the delay.

The appeal was dismissed.

Five appellants convicted of drug-related offences appealed their convictions, challenging the application judge's admission of evidence obtained pursuant to wiretap authorizations under s. 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The appellants argued that the application judge erred in his s. 24(2) analysis by failing to adequately recognize the impact of prior police misconduct and by not giving appropriate effect to findings of serious carelessness in the affidavits.

Ba Tuan Tran also appealed his sentence of 15 months imprisonment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all conviction appeals and the sentence appeal, finding the application judge's analysis fair, balanced, and correct.

In a criminal appeal, the court addressed whether the jury charge properly instructed jurors on how to assess a complainant's testimony about events allegedly occurring years earlier in childhood.

The intermediate appellate court had set aside convictions for sexual assault and sexual interference and ordered a new trial.

The court held that, read as a whole, the trial judge's instructions conveyed the correct legal approach to credibility and memory assessment.

The appeal was allowed and the convictions were restored.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, arguing the Board failed to address a treatment impasse and erred in admitting an email into evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence of a treatment impasse on the record and noting the Board's wide latitude to accept hearsay evidence.

The appellant's continued detention at a maximum secure forensic facility was deemed appropriate.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board had no obligation to make further inquiries beyond the joint position of the parties based on the record.

The Court noted the appellant's progress, the existence of a treatment plan, and concluded that the Board's disposition was the least onerous and least restrictive available.