Joshua David Chan

The applicants, L.H. and D.P., charged with manslaughter, criminal negligence causing death, and failing to provide necessaries of life, brought an application for a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay under section 11(b) of the Charter.

The court analyzed the total elapsed time against the Jordan ceiling, considering periods of delay attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic and defence actions as exceptional circumstances.

The court found that after deducting these periods, the delay fell below the presumptive ceiling.

Furthermore, the court determined that the defence had not taken meaningful steps to expedite proceedings and that the case had not taken markedly longer than it reasonably should have, dismissing both applications for a stay.

In a mid-trial ruling during a murder jury trial, the court permitted the Crown to expand its cross-examination of the accused after finding a material change in circumstances from an earlier pre-trial admissibility ruling.

The accused's testimony introduced a new issue by minimizing his possession of a revolver allegedly used in the homicide and claiming only temporary, reluctant possession on behalf of his brother.

Applying the principles governing cross-examination of an accused, the court held that questioning about the second handgun and cash depicted in edited cell phone photographs was directly relevant to testing the truthfulness of that account and had substantial probative value.

The court found the resulting prejudice manageable through a strong limiting instruction, but prohibited use of the photographs themselves before the jury.

During a first-degree murder trial, the Crown brought a mid-trial motion to admit recently disclosed wiretap intercepts as post-offence conduct.

The intercepts allegedly captured the accused attempting to influence co-accused and witnesses to testify under the protection of the Canada Evidence Act.

The court denied the motion, finding that while the evidence had probative value regarding consciousness of guilt, it was outweighed by significant prejudicial effects, including the need for complex jury instructions on the co-conspirator hearsay exception, the Canada Evidence Act, solicitor-client privilege, and bad character reasoning.

In a pre-trial motion for a first-degree murder trial, the accused sought to challenge prospective jurors for cause based on racial bias, unconscious bias, and attitudes toward illegal firearms possession.

Following the Supreme Court's decision in Chouhan, the court revised its jury selection procedures, determining that the trial judge would ask the challenge questions and pre-instruct the panel.

The court permitted revised questions on racial and unconscious bias, and allowed a narrow question regarding the jurors' ability to follow limiting instructions on the accused's admitted prior possession of illegal firearms.

However, the court rejected proposed questions inquiring into jurors' beliefs about crime rates among Black men.