Justin Marchand

The accused, J.C., brought a mid-trial application under section 11(b) of the Charter, alleging unreasonable delay.

The total delay was 20 months and 4 days, exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial court matters set by R. v. Jordan.

The Crown argued that some delay was attributable to the defence or exceptional circumstances due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found no waiver or attributable delay by the defence, noting Crown disclosure delays and prioritization of other matters.

The court also rejected the argument that pandemic-related backlog constituted an exceptional circumstance in this case, as the direct impacts had abated and the time to obtain trial dates was not inordinate.

The application was granted, and the charge was stayed.

The appellant appealed his conviction for driving with a blood alcohol concentration over the legal limit.

He argued that his statements to the police at the scene of a single-vehicle collision were compelled under the Highway Traffic Act, and therefore the officer's observation of the smell of alcohol should have been excluded under the Charter.

The summary conviction appeal judge upheld the trial judge's finding that the officer detected the smell of alcohol independently of the compelled statements, specifically when the appellant was isolated in the police cruiser.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction for impaired driving, arguing the trial judge erred in dismissing his s. 11(b) Charter application for unreasonable delay.

The total delay was 20 months and one week, but the trial judge deducted time for exceptional circumstances (the original trial judge's recusal), bringing the net delay to 16 months and one week, below the 18-month presumptive ceiling.

The Superior Court of Justice found no error in the trial judge's application of the Jordan framework or the sufficiency of his reasons, and dismissed the appeal.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittal on impaired driving and over 80 charges.

The trial judge erred by refusing to allow the Crown to call the Qualified Breath Technician (QBT) without a certificate and by dismissing the charges without hearing submissions.

The Superior Court found these to be fundamental errors in law, as the Crown is entitled to prove its case through viva voce evidence even without a certificate, and parties must be given an opportunity to make submissions.

The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted for a new trial.