2 total
Stay of proceedings for unreasonable delay denied; 26-month delay justified by case complexity.
The applicants, five co-accused in a complex drug trafficking prosecution, applied for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, arguing unreasonable trial delay.
The anticipated delay was approximately 26 months, exceeding the 18-month ceiling for provincial court trials.
The court dismissed the application, finding that the case was 'particularly complex' under the Jordan framework due to voluminous disclosure (over 75,000 pages), multiple judicial authorizations, and the nature of the joint prosecution.
The court also found that the Crown had developed and followed a concrete plan to minimize delay.
Despite finding that an Ontario Court of Justice judge lacked jurisdiction to authorize a video surveillance warrant, the court admitted the resulting evidence under section 24(2) due to police good faith.
The applicants brought a motion challenging the validity of three general warrants (dated June 30, August 13, and October 8, 2015) authorizing video surveillance and covert entries at 691 Bank Street in Ottawa as part of Project Step, a drug trafficking investigation.
The central issue was whether an Ontario Court of Justice judge had jurisdiction to authorize video surveillance under section 487.01(4) of the Criminal Code, or whether such authorization required a Superior Court of Justice judge.
The court found that the applicants had standing to challenge the warrants based on a reasonable expectation of privacy in the hallway, albeit attenuated.
The court determined that video surveillance warrants must be signed by a Superior Court judge, not an Ontario Court of Justice judge, rendering the June 30 warrant invalid.
However, the court severed the covert entry portion of the June 30 warrant, which remained valid.
The court also quashed the portions of the August 13 and October 8 warrants authorizing entries into unit C, as the information supporting those entries was derived from the unlawful hallway surveillance.
Despite these findings, the court admitted all evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding that exclusion would bring the administration of justice into disrepute given the good faith conduct of police and the attenuated privacy interests involved.
