Kayla Marlene Tink

The Crown appealed an absolute discharge granted to the respondent for mischief and breach of undertaking, arguing the sentencing judge erred in applying the "best interests of the accused" and "public interest" tests under s. 730(1) of the Criminal Code.

The appeal court found the sentencing judge erred by failing to consider the respondent's criminal record and specific deterrence, and by narrowly defining "public interest" to exclude the broader community.

The appeal was allowed, the absolute discharge vacated, a conviction entered, and a suspended sentence with probation was imposed, but its execution was permanently stayed due to the passage of time and the respondent's compliance with conditions.

The Crown appealed a lower court's decision to stay charges against the respondent, Elijah Jacques-Taylor, under section 11(b) of the Charter due to unreasonable delay.

The application judge found a net delay exceeding the 18-month Jordan ceiling, after deducting defence delay and a period for COVID-19 backlog.

The Crown argued errors in applying the contextual approach to initial date setting, failing to deduct delay from a co-accused's unavailability, and implying the Crown should have severed the respondent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the application judge's findings that the contextual approach was correctly applied, delay from a co-accused is not automatically attributed to all, and the Crown had tools to address delay without necessarily severing.