Justice P.H.M. Agro

The applicant corporation brought a motion for a stay of proceedings based on an alleged breach of its section 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The matter arose from a serious workplace injury in 2013.

An information was sworn in June 2014, and the first trial commenced in April 2016 but was stayed in January 2018 on Charter grounds.

The Crown appealed and obtained a retrial order in March 2019.

The court found that the retrial delay of 10 months and 15 days (after excluding defence delay) was unreasonable in the context of a retrial that should have been prioritized.

The court granted the stay of proceedings, finding that institutional delay was the primary cause of the violation of the accused's right to trial within a reasonable time.

The accused was found guilty of seven counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking in various controlled substances (fentanyl, heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, GHB, hydromorphone, and cannabis), two counts of possession of proceeds of crime, one count of careless storage of a firearm, and one count of possession of a loaded prohibited weapon.

The accused operated a drug trafficking enterprise in concert with a co-accused from a hair salon and later from a residential address.

The court imposed a sentence of 7 years and 6 months imprisonment, with consideration given to Gladue factors relating to the accused's Métis heritage, childhood trauma, and rehabilitation efforts, while maintaining that denunciation and deterrence remained paramount given the serious nature of the offences involving fentanyl and heroin trafficking combined with firearms possession.

The accused was charged with five counts of robbery and five counts of disguise with intent relating to convenience store robberies in Hamilton in February 2019.

The Crown's case relied primarily on recognition evidence from family members and surveillance video.

The defence presented evidence from the accused's girlfriend and father challenging the identification.

The court found that while the Crown witnesses were sincere, their testimony was unreliable due to inconsistencies, poor quality surveillance footage, and contradictions with other evidence.

The court was not satisfied that the Crown had proven the accused's identity beyond a reasonable doubt and entered verdicts of not guilty on all ten counts.

The accused, a 16-year-old youth, was charged with assaulting a pregnant woman causing bodily harm during a family celebration.

The Crown alleged the accused punched and kicked the complainant.

The accused testified he only slapped the complainant in self-defence after she pushed and hit him.

The court found the complainant to be a credible and reliable witness whose testimony was consistent with photographic evidence of her injuries.

The accused's testimony contained multiple inconsistencies and his post-offence conduct of leaving without his shoes suggested consciousness of guilt.

The court found the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference against a six-year-old child.

The sole evidence of the allegations came from the child's testimony.

The accused brought an application under the Edgar exception to admit his videotaped statement to police made upon arrest, arguing it demonstrated his immediate reaction to the accusation rather than the truth of the statement.

The court conducted a voir dire to determine admissibility under the three-part Edgar test: whether the accused testified, whether the statement was made upon arrest or first accusation, and whether the statement was spontaneous.

The court found all three requirements satisfied and admitted the statement for the limited purpose of demonstrating the accused's reaction to the charges and his consistency with trial testimony.

The accused was convicted of seven counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking in various controlled substances (fentanyl, heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, GHB, hydromorphone, and cannabis), one count of possession of proceeds of crime under $5,000, one count of careless storage of a firearm, one count of possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, and four counts of breach of firearms prohibition orders.

The court imposed a global sentence of 9 years imprisonment, including a 1-year consecutive term for the prohibition breaches, with time served credited on a 1.5:1 basis.

The sentencing emphasized the serious dangers of fentanyl and heroin trafficking, the toxic combination of drugs and firearms, and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

A young person was found guilty at trial of three counts of assault, two counts of sexual assault, and one count of unlawful confinement committed at age 16, and pleaded guilty to one count of uttering threats, one count of criminal harassment, and two counts of failing to comply with probation terms committed as an adult.

The offences were committed against the mother of his child over a prolonged period involving repeated physical and sexual violence, followed by years of harassment via social media.

The court imposed a global sentence of two years custody and community supervision for the youth offences and three years imprisonment for the adult offences, with ancillary orders including DNA collection, weapons prohibitions, and no-contact orders.