Ka Wong

The offender pleaded guilty to sexual assault with a weapon, forcible confinement, and robbery after attacking a pregnant woman in a public washroom.

Following a psychiatric assessment, the Crown and defence agreed the offender should be designated a long-term offender but disagreed on the sentence length.

The court weighed the offender's high risk of violent and sexual recidivism, his history of violence against women, and his bipolar affective disorder.

The court imposed a global sentence of five years in custody (two years going forward after pre-sentence credit) and a ten-year Long-Term Supervision Order.

This ruling addresses a disclosure application in a sexual assault case.

The accused sought records from municipal by-law officers who initially investigated the incident.

The defence argued these were first-party disclosure, while the Crown contended they were third-party records requiring a Mills application due to the complainant's privacy interests.

The court found that the records, created by municipal peace officers investigating the same incident that led to criminal charges, constituted first-party disclosure.

The complainant's privacy interests did not displace the accused's right to presumptively relevant material from the investigation.

The records were ordered to be vetted and disclosed by the Crown under its Stinchcombe obligations.

The defendant, Astrit Shkurta, brought an application under s. 11(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for a stay of charges due to unreasonable delay.

The court applied the R. v. Jordan framework, calculating the total delay as 802 days.

After subtracting 286 days attributed to defence delay (including delays in Crown Pretrial Hearing (CPT) and Judicial Pretrial Hearing (JPT) scheduling, and lack of contact between the defendant and counsel), the net delay was found to be 516 days (16.96 months).

As this net delay was below the 18-month presumptive ceiling for the Ontario Court of Justice, the court found no s. 11(b) breach and dismissed the application.

The court also noted no evidence that the COVID-19 pandemic contributed to the delay in this specific case.