Stay of proceedings

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the Crown’s appeal from a stay of proceedings entered after a trial judge found that correctional officers, including Officer Warburton, used excessive force and then colluded to cover up the incident by filing false reports and giving misleading testimony.

The trial judge found a violation of the respondent’s Charter rights and determined that a stay was the only appropriate remedy to protect the integrity of the justice system.

The appellate court held that the trial judge’s findings were supported by the evidence, her legal analysis was correct, and her remedy was justified in the circumstances.

The applicant, Chad Rolling, sought a stay of proceedings on the basis that his right to be tried within a reasonable time under section 11(b) of the Charter was breached.

The court found that, after deducting periods of delay attributable to the defence, the net delay did not exceed the 30-month ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The application was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed David Tweneboa-Kodua’s motion for leave to appeal an order lifting a stay of eviction, finding the court lacked jurisdiction.

The proper avenue to challenge the Divisional Court’s order was a motion before a panel of that court, not an appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The court found the motion frivolous and an abuse of process, and made no order as to costs.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appellants’ motion for a stay of a receivership order appointing a receiver under section 129 of the Securities Act.

The court found that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the appellants failed to establish irreparable harm and the balance of convenience did not favour a stay.

The decision reviews the background of the receivership, the test for a stay, and the evidence presented, ultimately concluding that the public interest and interests of third parties, including mortgagees, would be harmed by a stay.

The Ontario Court of Justice allowed the City of Toronto's appeal of judicial stays of proceedings against Henry Shein Canada and Lisa Lee-Tucker for red light camera infractions.

The stays were originally granted due to violations of s. 11(b) of the Charter (right to a trial within a reasonable time) and common law abuse of process because the cases exceeded the 18-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The Court found that the trial judge erred by initiating the stays sua sponte without proper notice to the prosecution, violating the procedural requirements under s. 109 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The decision clarifies that stays for delay under s. 11(b) require notice and that trial judges must exercise caution when bringing motions on their own initiative, especially in unrepresented accused cases under the Provincial Offences Act.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the Crown's appeal from a stay of proceedings in a sexual assault case, finding that the premature disclosure of defence materials to the complainant’s counsel was an innocent error and did not result in prejudice to trial fairness.

The court held that a stay of proceedings is a drastic remedy reserved for the clearest of cases and that alternative remedies were available.

The matter was remitted for trial before a different judge.

The Ontario Court of Justice granted Aaron Nazeer's application for a stay of proceedings under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, finding that his right to be tried within a reasonable time was violated.

The total delay of 743 days (24.4 months) far exceeded the 18-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

After subtracting defence-caused delay (82 days) and exceptional circumstances (54 days due to the death of the original trial judge), the remaining delay was still 607 days (20 months), exceeding the ceiling.

The court found no complexity in the case to justify the delay and emphasized systemic under-resourcing and judicial scheduling deficiencies in Orangeville Provincial Court as the primary cause of delay.

The applicant was found to have made sustained efforts to expedite the trial, and the delay was deemed unreasonable, warranting a stay of proceedings.

The Ontario Court of Justice dismissed Brian Cobb's application to stay proceedings following his conviction for uttering a threat to cause bodily harm.

The application alleged multiple Charter breaches and abuse of process, including interference in the solicitor-client relationship, improper appointment of counsel under s. 486.3 of the Criminal Code, and judicial misconduct.

The court found only one Charter breach related to the manner in which counsel was appointed under s. 486.3, but this breach was not serious enough to warrant a stay.

The court emphasized that vacating trial dates does not equate to dismissal of charges and rejected allegations of judicial bias and prosecutorial misconduct.

The application was dismissed, and sentencing was to proceed.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the appeal of Barrington Grant’s conviction for possession of a loaded firearm.

The appellant had challenged the admissibility of evidence obtained under a warrant, but his application was dismissed at trial.

After his conviction, related proceedings involving the same information to obtain (ITO) resulted in stays due to disclosure issues.

The Crown conceded the appeal in light of these developments and a prior Court of Appeal decision in R. v. Khamo, which quashed a conviction based on the same evidence.

The court set aside the conviction, ordered a new trial, and entered a stay of proceedings.

This decision addresses a Charter application for a stay of proceedings based on an alleged violation of the accused's section 11(b) right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The accused, Luciano Battiston, was charged following a pedestrian accident resulting in bodily harm and death.

The Court applied the Supreme Court of Canada's framework from R v. Jordan and R v. K.G.K., confirming that the presumptive ceiling for provincial court trials is 18 months.

The Court found the total delay of approximately 18.5 months presumptively unreasonable, with no exceptional circumstances or complexity to justify the delay.

The Court also critically examined state-caused delay due to lack of internet connectivity in Toronto Provincial Offences Act (POA) courts, attributing such delay to the Crown.

The Court ordered a stay of proceedings pursuant to s. 24(1) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the Crown’s appeal from a stay of drug charges entered under section 11(b) of the Charter.

The Crown argued that the trial judge should have deducted 92 days as a discrete exceptional circumstance due to a co-accused’s discharge of counsel.

The Court found no error in the trial judge’s approach or conclusion, holding that the Crown could have proceeded separately against the respondent, as it had with other co-accused.

The stay was upheld.

This decision addresses a Charter application under section 11(b) seeking a stay of proceedings for delay in a Provincial Offences Act (POA) matter involving careless driving causing bodily harm and death.

The defendant argued that despite the trial being scheduled within the 18-month presumptive ceiling established by the Supreme Court in R. v. Jordan, his right to a timely trial was violated due to systemic delays, particularly in disclosure by the Toronto Police Service (TPS).

The Court analyzed the defendant’s efforts to expedite the trial, the complexity of the case, local systemic factors affecting POA prosecutions in Toronto, and the Crown’s conduct.

The Court found the case was not complex, the defence took all meaningful steps to expedite, and the Crown acted reasonably given local conditions.

The Court emphasized the systemic challenges in POA disclosure and trial scheduling in Toronto but concluded that the trial was scheduled within the constitutional ceiling and denied the stay of proceedings.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed a motion by Aliamisse O. Mundulai, who sought to set aside a decision refusing an extension of time to bring a panel review and to stay enforcement of certain paragraphs of a Superior Court order in a family law dispute.

The court found that the relevant rule (r. 63.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure) applied, and that the moving party had not demonstrated irremediable hardship.

The responding party, Ying Huang, was awarded costs of $3,000.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Rosemont’s appeal from an order staying its application against John Faraci as an abuse of process.

The case turned on Rosemont’s failure to immediately disclose a settlement agreement with Cityzien Properties Limited to Mr. Faraci, which fundamentally changed the litigation landscape.

The court held that the obligation to disclose crystallized when the settlement was finalized, and that a delay of nearly two weeks was not “immediate” as required by law.

The court reaffirmed the strictness of the immediate disclosure rule and the automatic remedy of a stay for its breach, regardless of whether the settlement was ultimately enforceable.

The Ontario Court of Justice found that the accused, Adebiyi Adekunle, experienced a violation of his section 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time due to excessive delay of over 20 months from charge to trial.

The delay was primarily attributed to the Crown's inaction and failure to move the case forward, including missed pre-trials and lack of timely communication.

The court rejected the Crown's arguments that portions of the delay were caused solely by the defence or justified by case complexity.

The remedy of a stay of proceedings was granted.

This decision addresses multiple Charter breaches arising from the detention, search, and arrest of Omar Yaqubi in Toronto's Entertainment District.

The court found breaches of sections 7, 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter, including arbitrary detention without reasonable suspicion, unlawful search without safety justification, and failure to promptly inform and facilitate the right to counsel.

The court excluded the evidence obtained during the unlawful detention and search pursuant to section 24(2) of the Charter.

Alternatively, a stay of proceedings was directed due to the loss of critical evidence caused by police muting body-worn cameras and failure to preserve key witness information, impairing the accused's right to make full answer and defence.

This decision addresses the lawfulness of routine strip searches of youths in custody under the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found that the routine strip search policy at the Woodview youth detention facility, which permitted strip searches without individualized suspicion and allowed complete nudity despite policy prohibitions, violated s. 8 of the Charter.

The court rejected claims under ss. 7, 12, and 15 of the Charter.

The remedy sought—a stay of proceedings—was denied, with the court instead recommending sentence reductions and judicial pronouncements as appropriate remedies.

The decision emphasizes enhanced privacy protections for youths in custody compared to adults and calls for legislative reform to align youth strip search policies with constitutional standards.

This decision addresses an application for a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay under sections 11(b) and 24 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The applicant, Giuseppe Agrippa, argued that the total delay of 22 months and 16 days exceeded the 18-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The court analyzed whether appellate delay applies under s.11(b), the calculation of net delay including neutral and defence delay, and the attribution of adjournments.

The court found that the period during which the applicant was convicted and awaiting reopening could not be counted as delay, and that some adjournments were attributable to defence delay.

After deductions, the net delay was below the Jordan ceiling, and the application for a stay was dismissed.

This ruling addresses an application by the defendant, Marquis Clark, for a stay of proceedings under section 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging a breach of his section 11(b) right to a trial within a reasonable time.

The total delay from the information being sworn to the scheduled end of the second trial was 789 days, exceeding the presumptive ceiling set in R. v. Jordan.

The court analyzed the delay, deducting 195 days conceded by the defence and an additional 90 days attributed to the systemic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, as per the estimate in R. v. Korovchenko.

After deductions, the net delay of 504 days fell below the Jordan ceiling.

The court also considered the mistrial, finding it was due to an inadvertent disclosure mistake that was quickly remedied, and subsequent delays were largely due to defence counsel's schedules.

The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.

The applicant, Elijah Jacques-Taylor, sought a stay of serious firearms charges under s. 11(b) of the Charter, alleging unreasonable delay.

The total delay from the information being sworn (November 18, 2021) to the anticipated trial date (October 2-4, 2023) was 22 months and 2 weeks.

The court deducted one month for defence counsel's unavailability and three months for the ongoing impact of the COVID-19 backlog, resulting in a net delay of 18 months and 2 weeks.

This period exceeded the 18-month presumptive ceiling for the Ontario Court of Justice established in R. v. Jordan.

As the Crown conceded there were no exceptional circumstances to justify the delay, the court concluded that a stay of proceedings was the necessary remedy.