J. Lalande

The applicant brought an application for a stay of proceedings, arguing his s. 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time was infringed.

The total delay was 36 months and eight days.

The court deducted three months and 18 days for defence-caused delay, and three months and four days as a discrete exceptional event due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court declined to deduct delay caused by federal agencies vetting disclosure.

The remaining net delay was 29.5 months, which fell below the 30-month presumptive ceiling for superior courts.

The application was dismissed.

The Crown sought to admit expert opinion evidence from a forensic scientist regarding DNA and body fluid analysis.

The court admitted the expert evidence, finding it met the Mohan criteria and the White Burgess balancing test.

Subsequently, the accused brought an application to exclude fresh forensic evidence obtained during a trial adjournment, arguing late disclosure impaired his right to make full answer and defence under section 7 of the Charter.

The court granted the application, excluding the fresh evidence from the Crown's case-in-chief due to the prejudice caused to the accused's cross-examination strategy, though noting the ruling could be revisited if the defence called evidence.

The appellant, suffering from Type 1 Diabetes, appealed convictions for impaired driving, driving over .08, and failing to stop for police.

She raised a defence of necessity, arguing her actions were due to hypoglycemia.

The trial judge rejected her evidence and that of her expert endocrinologist, Dr. Silverman, finding no imminent risk or lack of reasonable alternatives.

The appeal court found the trial judge's rejection of the expert evidence unreasonable and her analysis of the cause of impairment incomplete, constituting a palpable and overriding error.

The offender was convicted after trial of robbery of a gas bar.

He entered the store, approached the cashier with his hand in his pocket as if he had a gun, and demanded money.

He obtained over $100 and left.

There was no actual weapon, no violence, and no physical injury to the victim, though the victim was anxious.

The offender is 44 years old, employed as a journeyman refrigeration and air conditioning mechanic, and has a dated criminal record from 2007-2008.

He has a significant alcohol addiction that motivated the offence, which occurred during a three-day drinking bender.

He has a 13-year-old son whom he supports and sees on weekends.

The Crown sought one year incarceration followed by probation; the defence sought 90 days served on weekends followed by probation.

A comprehensive trial judgment in a youth criminal justice matter involving multiple counts of trafficking in persons under 18, procuring prostitution, sexual assault, child pornography, forcible confinement, uttering threats, and related offences.

The court heard evidence from 22 civilian witnesses and 6 police officers regarding incidents involving five complainants.

The defendant was found guilty on the majority of counts, with acquittals entered on certain counts relating to assault causing bodily harm, unlawful confinement, and administering a stupefying drug where evidence was insufficient or unreliable.

The judgment provides detailed factual findings for each complainant and applies relevant statutory provisions and case law to determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

A bail hearing for a youth accused of serious charges including human trafficking, forcible confinement, sexual assault, possession of child pornography, abduction of a child under fourteen, sexual exploitation, robbery, assault, and administering a drug.

The Crown sought detention on secondary and tertiary grounds.

The accused proposed release to her older sister's residence with a $2,000 bond and house arrest conditions.

The court found the Crown had shown cause for detention based on concerns regarding the strength of the case, the gravity of the offences, evidence of organized and escalating violence, and inadequacy of the proposed supervision plan.

The court detained the accused on both secondary and tertiary grounds, finding that public confidence in the administration of justice would be undermined by release.