Joshua White

The applicant brought a section 11(b) Charter motion claiming unreasonable delay and seeking a stay of proceedings.

The applicant was charged with sexual assault causing bodily harm in relation to his ex-wife.

The total delay from the date of formal charges to the anticipated completion of trial was 1,179 days (approximately 38 months and 22 days).

The Crown failed to disclose critical evidence—video-recorded statements of the complainant and accused taken in Punjabi by police—and their translations for nearly two years.

The court found that the Crown's disclosure failures were unexplained and constituted a serious breach of its disclosure obligations.

After deducting legitimate defence delay periods, the net delay was 949 days (31.2 months), exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling for Superior Court trials.

The Crown did not establish exceptional circumstances to justify the delay.

The court granted the motion and stayed the proceedings.

The accused was convicted of possession of a loaded, restricted firearm with accessible ammunition, careless storage of a firearm, possession of a prohibited device and ammunition without a licence, and disobeying a lawful court order prohibiting weapon possession.

The court imposed a sentence of three years imprisonment on the firearm-related offences (served concurrently) and six months imprisonment on the breach of court order (served consecutively), for a total of three years and six months, less 574 days of enhanced pre-sentence custody credit, resulting in a remaining custodial term of one year, eleven months, and eight days.

The court found that the accused transported the loaded firearm across provincial borders in a motor vehicle and possessed it in public places, constituting aggravating factors.

The court emphasized the serious and escalating problem of illegal firearm possession in Peel Region and the paramount importance of denunciation and deterrence in sentencing for such offences.

The accused was charged with possession of a loaded, prohibited firearm and a prohibited device (over-capacity magazine) found in a blue duffel bag in the kitchen of his residence during the execution of a search warrant.

The Crown's case relied on surveillance evidence showing the accused carrying the bag, his driver's licence found in the bag, and the continuity of the bag from surveillance observations to its discovery.

The defence argued the firearm was planted by a third party resident.

The court found the accused guilty, rejecting the planting theory as speculative and unsupported, and finding the accused had both actual and constructive possession of the firearm and prohibited items.

The accused pleaded guilty to aggravated assault, breach of release order, and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose.

The Crown sought 15 months custody plus probation.

The defence argued for time served based on harsh pretrial custody conditions, extensive restrictive bail conditions, and the accused's rehabilitative potential.

The court sentenced the accused to 15 months custody but credited 104 days of Summers credit, 40 days for harsh institutional conditions (Duncan credit), and 454 days for restrictive bail conditions (Downes credit), totalling approximately 20 months of credit, resulting in a sentence of time already served.

The accused was placed on two years probation with conditions including non-contact with victims, weapons prohibition, and mandatory counselling for anger management and substance abuse.

The court found S.P. guilty of one count of sexual interference, accepting the complainant's evidence and the accused's own admissions in text messages as proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found reasonable doubt as to a second alleged incident, citing inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence and corroborating evidence from other witnesses and the Agreed Statement of Facts.

The decision provides a detailed analysis of the law on credibility, reasonable doubt, motive, and the assessment of child witness evidence in sexual offence cases.

The court sentenced Renzo Gomez for dangerous driving causing death and dangerous driving causing bodily harm, following his guilty plea.

The facts established that Mr. Gomez drove at excessive speed, under the influence of alcohol, and with a history of prior driving offences, resulting in a fatal collision and serious injuries.

The court reviewed the impact on the victims and their families, the offender’s personal circumstances, and the applicable legal framework.

After considering aggravating and mitigating factors, the court imposed a custodial sentence of 6 years for causing death (with a 16-year driving prohibition) and 4 years for causing bodily harm (with a 14-year prohibition), to be served concurrently, along with a DNA order.

This criminal trial concerned charges of impaired driving causing death and bodily harm against Renzo Gomez, who had already pleaded guilty to dangerous driving.

The central issue was whether the accused's ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol.

Despite a high-speed collision, the smell of alcohol on the accused's breath, and a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) range of 53-105 mg/100ml, the court found reasonable doubt.

This was primarily due to expert evidence highlighting inter-individual variability in the effects of alcohol and the consistent testimony of three witnesses (a police officer and two paramedics) who observed no signs of impairment in the accused.

The court emphasized that a high BAC alone, especially below 100 mg/100ml, does not automatically prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt for criminal prosecution, and that such a threshold is a matter for Parliament.

The accused was acquitted of the impaired driving charges.

The accused, Harneil Dhillon, brought a s. 11(b) Charter application for a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay.

The Crown sought summary dismissal for non-compliance with court rules regarding timely filing and service.

The court exercised its discretion to hear the application on its merits despite the procedural non-compliance.

Applying the Jordan framework, the court calculated the total delay, attributed significant portions to defence conduct (211 days), and then considered exceptional circumstances related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court deducted 63 days for pandemic-related delays (53 days for social distancing impacts on intake processes and 10 days for the second court shutdown's ripple effects).

This reduced the net delay below the presumptive ceiling of 18 months for the Ontario Court of Justice.

Consequently, the application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.