J.R. Lalande

The Crown applied for an extension of time to hold a prima facie hearing for an accused found unfit to stand trial due to advanced dementia.

The hearing was delayed past the two-year statutory deadline due to an administrative error in classifying the disposition and subsequent delays in scheduling.

The court granted the extension, finding that despite the unwarranted delay, the serious nature of the sexual assault allegations and the lack of significant practical prejudice to the accused made the extension necessary for the proper administration of justice.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittal on a charge of stunt driving by excessive speed.

At trial, the Justice of the Peace acquitted the respondent because he was not satisfied that the radar device used by the officer was functioning properly, citing concerns with the officer's evidence regarding mobile testing.

On appeal, the Crown argued the trial judge misapprehended the evidence and misapplied the law.

The Ontario Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no legal error.

The trial judge was entitled to assess the credibility and reliability of the officer's evidence and conclude that the Crown failed to provide sufficient prima facie evidence of the radar device's reliability.

Following a guilty verdict on sexual offences involving a child complainant, the Crown disclosed a previously withheld statement from the complainant.

The statement contained new allegations and an admission of a prior false allegation against the accused.

The accused applied for a mistrial.

The court granted the application, finding that re-opening the trial and reconsidering the complainant's credibility in light of the new evidence would create a reasonable apprehension of bias given the court's prior positive credibility findings.

A mistrial was ordered as the only remedy capable of curing the prejudice and preserving trial fairness.