John Kingdon

The applicants, arrested in a large-scale police investigation, brought an abuse of process motion seeking a stay of proceedings due to systemic delays in holding their special bail hearings.

They argued that their section 11(e) Charter rights were violated, similar to the applicants in a previous case where a stay was granted.

The court found that while the applicants' rights were violated by the delays, the systemic problem in the jurisdiction had been largely rectified following the previous decision.

As the ongoing systemic delay had been addressed, a stay of proceedings was no longer necessary to protect the integrity of the justice system.

The application was dismissed, though the court noted the Charter violations could warrant a sentence reduction if the applicants are convicted.

The applicants, charged with serious firearms and gaming offences, experienced a 12-day delay before their special bail hearing was held.

They brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter, arguing that the delay violated their s. 11(e) rights and constituted an abuse of process.

The Crown conceded the Charter breach and acknowledged systemic issues in scheduling lengthy bail hearings in Brampton.

The court found that the systemic and ongoing nature of the bail delays severely compromised the integrity of the justice system.

Despite the seriousness of the charges, the court concluded that a stay of proceedings was the only appropriate remedy to address the persistent institutional failure.

The appellant appealed his conviction for refusing to provide a breath sample.

He argued the trial judge erred by failing to apply the 'last chance' doctrine, failing to consider his medical condition as a reasonable excuse, and misapprehending the evidence of his failure to comply.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant was given six opportunities to provide a sample, his medical complaints were not supported by the evidence, and his refusal was unequivocal.

The accused was charged with two counts of attempted murder after randomly attacking two individuals with a knife.

The defence conceded the acts but argued that the accused was not criminally responsible under s. 16 of the Criminal Code due to a mental disorder including psychosis and schizophrenia.

Psychiatric experts agreed the accused suffered from a major mental disorder but differed on whether it rendered him incapable of knowing his acts were morally wrong.

The court found that the accused understood the legal wrongfulness of his actions, citing his attempts to evade police and his admissions during a videotaped statement.

The court rejected the defence argument that command hallucinations rendered him incapable of appreciating moral wrongness and found the evidentiary basis for that theory weak.

The defence failed to meet its burden on a balance of probabilities, and the accused was convicted on both counts of attempted murder.