Jessica Read

The accused, Airgama Abaya, brought a s. 11(b) Charter application for a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay in his impaired driving trial.

The total delay from the information being sworn (July 7, 2022) to the completion of evidence and submissions (March 27, 2024) was 20 months and 20 days.

After deducting 32 days of defence-conceded delay, the net delay was 19 months and 18 days, exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling for the Ontario Court of Justice set by R. v. Jordan.

The Crown failed to establish exceptional circumstances to justify the delay.

The court found no discrete events or case complexity to qualify as exceptional circumstances, and declined to consider general COVID-19 ripple effects or judge/staff shortages without specific evidence and argument.

Consequently, the court found a breach of s. 11(b) of the Charter and imposed a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1).

The appellant appealed his convictions for impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg.

The court found the trial judge erred in applying the Villaroman analysis for circumstantial evidence by failing to consider plausible innocent explanations, such as inclement weather and the appellant's accent.

The court also found issues with the trial judge's s.24(2) Charter analysis regarding a "hold off" breach of the right to counsel, making it difficult to understand the conclusions on the first two prongs of the Grant test.

The appeal was allowed, convictions were set aside, and a new trial was ordered for both charges.

The accused was charged with three counts of assault against his estranged common-law wife.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the complainant's testimony, which the court found to be inconsistent and unreliable due to material discrepancies between her trial evidence and prior police statements, as well as her admitted willingness to provide false information to police on previous occasions.

The evidence of child witnesses, introduced via Agreed Statements of Fact, also contradicted the complainant's account regarding one of the alleged assaults.

The court concluded that the complainant demonstrated carelessness with the truth, negatively impacting her credibility.

Consequently, the court found the accused not guilty on all three charges, as the Crown failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused, charged with sexual assault, brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, arguing his right to be tried within a reasonable time was violated.

He contended that following the enactment of Bill C-75, which eliminated preliminary hearings for his charge, the presumptive ceiling for his Superior Court trial should be 18 months rather than 30 months.

The court rejected this argument, holding that the 30-month ceiling applies to all cases in the Superior Court regardless of whether a preliminary hearing is held.

The court also found that the anticipated net delay of 22 months, after deducting Covid-19 related exceptional circumstances, was not markedly longer than reasonably required.

The application for a stay was dismissed.

The accused brought an application for leave to cross-examine the affiant of an Information to Obtain (ITO) for a search warrant.

The accused challenged the issuance of the warrant under section 8 of the Charter, asserting insufficient credible and reliable evidence.

The court applied the test from R. v. Garofoli and R. v. Pires; R. v. Lising, denying leave to cross-examine on all proposed areas.

The court found no evidentiary foundation showing the affiant knew or ought to have known that information in the ITO was false or misleading, and that proposed cross-examination would not assist in determining whether the warrant could have issued.