Joshua Kin-Yu Ng

The applicant, charged with firearm offences, applied for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms on the basis that the trial had not been held within a reasonable time.

The charges were laid on January 16, 2022, with trial scheduled for December 2025, representing a delay of nearly four years.

The Crown had originally charged the applicant with both firearm offences and a possession for the purpose of trafficking charge, which was withdrawn on May 30, 2024.

The court found that the Crown's handling of the drug charge—including indecision about withdrawal, tentative communications, and delays in actually withdrawing the charge—constituted Crown delay that exceeded the Jordan ceiling of 30 months for two-stage proceedings.

The court calculated net delay at approximately 37 months and granted the stay of proceedings.

The defendant, Georges Sarrouh, was charged with sexually assaulting his former employee, LM.

The case hinged on the credibility and reliability of the witnesses, LM, her brother CM, and the defendant.

The defence alleged that LM and CM were attempting to extort money from Sarrouh.

The court found LM and CM to be credible and reliable witnesses, while finding Sarrouh's account of extortion wanting.

The court was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Sarrouh sexually assaulted LM as described and found him guilty.

The defendant, P.N., was accused of seven counts including assault, mischief, threatening death, and sexual assault by his ex-girlfriend.

The court found significant issues with the complainant's credibility and reliability, including shifting testimony, a strong motive to fabricate allegations due to the defendant's deception about his marriage, and the perjury of a key Crown witness (the complainant's roommate).

The complainant's account of the sexual assault was deemed unlikely and lacking detail.

The defendant was found not guilty on all counts due to the Crown's failure to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant, Lenny Alexandre, was charged with operating a conveyance while prohibited.

The defence challenged the Crown's proof of identity, the connection of the license suspension to a criminal conviction, and argued that the Crown must prove the defendant was not registered in an ignition interlock program.

The court found that identity was proven by circumstantial evidence, the license suspension was sufficiently connected to a prior criminal conviction for driving with excess blood alcohol, and that registration in an interlock program is a defence, not an element of the offence, placing an evidentiary burden on the defendant.

The defendant was found guilty.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal where the appellants (defendants) successfully challenged the sanction (judgment in the action) imposed by the motion judge for contempt, due to procedural flaws.

The Court of Appeal upheld the initial costs award for the contempt finding, but set aside the costs for the sanctions hearing and the action, and ordered no costs for the appeal, acknowledging the appellants' underlying contemptuous conduct as the root cause of the proceedings.

The appellants, found in contempt for multiple failures to disclose assets and account for misappropriated investment funds, appealed the motion judge's decision to grant judgment against them for approximately $9 million as a sanction for contempt.

The Court of Appeal held that while striking a defence or barring participation can be a sanction for contempt, final judgment is not directly available as a punishment for contempt under Ontario's Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Court found that the motion judge erred by relying on the merits of the action to grant judgment while simultaneously barring the appellants from addressing those merits.

The judgment was set aside, and the matter remitted to a different judge for a new sentencing hearing.