Justice A. R. Mackay

The accused brought a Charter application under s. 11(b) alleging a breach of the right to trial within a reasonable time.

The accused was arrested on February 5, 2019 and charged with communicating with a person under the age of sixteen for the purpose of facilitating sexual assault and sexual interference, failure to comply with recognizance, and failure to comply with undertaking.

The trial was scheduled to commence approximately 22 months after arrest, exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The Crown argued that the delay attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic and court suspension of operations constituted an exceptional circumstance justifying the delay.

The court found that 7 months and 10 days of delay could be attributed to the pandemic, reducing net delay to 14 months and 20 days, below the presumptive ceiling.

The court found the defence failed to demonstrate meaningful and sustained efforts to expedite proceedings or that the case took markedly longer than it reasonably should have.

The application was dismissed.

Two accused were charged with multiple offences related to an illegal online gaming and betting operation, as well as serious firearm offences.

The Crown opposed their release on both secondary and tertiary grounds under section 515 of the Criminal Code.

The court found that while the charges were serious and involved firearms, the proposed release plans with responsible sureties and strict house arrest conditions adequately addressed public safety concerns.

The court granted bail to both accused, emphasizing that detention is the exception and release the rule, and that the strength of the proposed supervision plan is a relevant factor in the tertiary ground analysis.

The accused was charged with sexually assaulting his co-worker over a period from July 2016 to June 2017 at their workplace.

The complainant testified that the accused touched her breast and crotch area on more than 30 occasions without consent.

The accused denied the allegations, claiming the complainant fabricated them to obtain a layoff or money through the Human Rights Tribunal.

The central issue was credibility and reliability of the parties.

The court found the complainant's evidence consistent and credible despite vigorous cross-examination, and rejected the accused's denials and alternative explanations.

The court convicted the accused of sexual assault.

The defendant was charged with operation of a motor vehicle with excess blood alcohol under section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code, arising from a traffic stop on May 11, 2018.

The sole issue was whether the Crown could rely on the presumption of identity under section 258(1)(c) of the Criminal Code to establish the defendant's blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving.

The defendant challenged the applicability of this presumption following Parliament's December 18, 2018 amendments to the Criminal Code, which substantially revised the driving offence provisions.

The court held that the presumption of identity continues to apply to prosecutions under the former section 253(1)(b) and that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level in excess of the legal limit (Over 80) contrary to s. 253(1)(b) and impaired driving, arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The trial addressed four key issues: the voluntariness of utterances made to police, identification of the driver, whether breath tests were taken within the required two-hour window, and whether the defendant's ability to operate the vehicle was impaired by alcohol.

The court found the defendant guilty on both counts.