Joshua Kyle Mociak

The accused, Shabbir Dossa, brought an application under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging that his right to be tried within a reasonable time had been breached.

The total delay from the swearing of the Information to the anticipated end of trial was 24 months and 17 days, exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling for the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Crown argued that portions of the delay were attributable to the defence or constituted exceptional circumstances (discrete events or case complexity).

The court found no delay attributable to the defence and no exceptional circumstances.

The primary reason for the delay was the Crown's unacceptable and unexplainable delay in providing meaningful disclosure, particularly the accident reconstructionist report and ITOs.

Consequently, the court found a breach of the accused's 11(b) right and ordered a stay of proceedings.

The accused, M. T-S., was found guilty by a jury of one count of sexual assault against his former intimate partner, C.U. The assault involved penetrative sexual intercourse without consent, occurring in the presence of their young daughter.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the abuse of an intimate partner, the significant impact on the victim, the presence of a child during the offence, and the offender's criminal record.

Mitigating factors were limited to the offender's physical disability (amputee) and the time spent on bail.

The Crown sought a four-year imprisonment sentence, while the Defence proposed 30 months.

The court applied sentencing principles, including proportionality, individualization, denunciation, and deterrence, and considered the 3-5 year starting point range for penetrative sexual assaults.

The court also addressed the relevance of potential immigration consequences, concluding they did not warrant a reduced sentence given the egregious nature of the offence.

M. T-S. was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment, along with ancillary orders for DNA, sex offender registration, no-contact, and a weapons prohibition.

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings under sections 11(b) and 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging unreasonable delay in bringing the matter to trial.

The total delay from arrest to the scheduled end of trial was 1029 days, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The court analyzed the delay, attributing significant periods to the defence due to issues like obtaining and changing counsel.

Additionally, the court recognized the COVID-19 pandemic as a discrete exceptional circumstance, deducting the associated delays.

After accounting for defence-attributable and exceptional delays, the net delay fell substantially below the Jordan ceiling.

Consequently, the court found no infringement of the applicant's right to be tried within a reasonable time and dismissed the application for a stay.

The accused, R.M.P., was charged with one count of sexual assault against the complainant, A.M. The trial focused on whether the sexual encounter was consensual and if the accused was aware of any lack of consent.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of both witnesses, applying the principles from R. v. W.D. and R. v. J.J.R.D. The defence theory that the complainant fabricated the allegation due to feeling disrespected was rejected as inconsistent with the evidence, particularly the complainant's immediate demeanour after the incident.

The court found the complainant's testimony credible and accepted her version of events, concluding that the Crown had proven the allegation beyond a reasonable doubt and found the accused guilty.