Jeffrey McFadden

This decision addresses an application for a stay of proceedings under sections 11(b) and 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, brought by Nicholas Aaron Martin and Mackenzie Doyle.

The applicants, charged with serious offences including robbery and pointing a firearm, argued that the delay in bringing their case to trial—over 52 months—exceeded the presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The court analyzed the sources of delay, including the presence of multiple accused and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, and found that the net delay still exceeded the ceiling.

The court ordered a stay of proceedings.

This criminal trial concerned charges of intentionally or recklessly causing damage by fire, common nuisance, and breach of a release order against the accused, Jeanette Belanger.

The Crown alleged the accused set fire to a residence out of retribution for infidelity, knowing it was occupied.

The court examined circumstantial evidence, including grainy security footage, text messages purportedly from the accused, and the testimony of a key witness, Simon Pelletier.

The Fire Marshall's investigation could not definitively determine the fire's cause, identifying five possible ignition sources.

The court found the security footage inconclusive for identification, the electronic messages unreliable due to lack of expert evidence and uncertain dating, and Simon Pelletier's testimony untrustworthy as he admitted to lying.

Applying principles for circumstantial cases, the court concluded that the Crown failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the accused on all counts.

The Crown appealed a summary conviction acquittal and stay of proceedings against the respondent, Michael Lemieux, who was charged with assaulting a police officer.

The trial judge had acquitted Lemieux, finding doubt regarding his intent (reflexive action) and, alternatively, applying the doctrine of *de minimis non curat lex*.

The Crown also appealed the trial judge's findings on Charter violations.

The appellate court found that the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding the police vehicle's location and erred in applying *de minimis non curat lex*.

However, these legal errors were deemed not to have impacted the trial judge's fundamental doubt about the respondent's intent for assault.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the acquittal.

The appellate court declined to review the Charter findings due to the trial judge's unclear factual findings.