J. Wilkinson

The applicant brought a motion for a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter, alleging his s. 11(b) right to a trial within a reasonable time was violated.

The charges arose from a complex multi-year joint forces investigation into drug trafficking.

The court applied the Jordan framework and calculated the total delay, subtracting periods of defence waiver and defence-caused delay.

The court found the net delay of 25.5 months fell below the 30-month presumptive ceiling for superior courts.

Alternatively, the court held that the case's significant evidentiary and procedural complexity justified the delay as an exceptional circumstance.

The application for a stay was dismissed.

The accused, charged with armed robbery, brought a Charter application seeking to exclude a statement made to police, alleging breaches of his s. 10(a) and 10(b) rights.

The court found no s. 10(a) breach, as the accused knew the date and place of the robbery.

A s. 10(b) breach occurred when police questioned the accused at the roadside and seized his clothing before he could consult duty counsel.

However, the delay in facilitating access to counsel during the booking process was reasonable.

Under s. 24(2), the roadside statements and clothing were excluded, but the main interview statement was admitted as it was voluntary and followed a 'fresh start' caution.

The applicants brought a pre-trial motion seeking a stay of proceedings for abuse of process, alleging widespread police misconduct in the execution of wiretap authorizations, particularly regarding the interception of privileged solicitor-client communications.

During the motion, police witnesses testified about their handling of intercepted communications, prompting the applicants to seek disclosure of the legal advice the police received from Crown counsel.

The Crown asserted solicitor-client privilege over the advice.

The court held that while the individual officers did not waive privilege, the applicants met the threshold to pierce the privilege under the 'innocence at stake' exception as adapted for an abuse of process motion.

The court ordered a stage-two in-camera review of the privileged communications to determine if they should be disclosed to the defence.