K. Reitsma

The applicants, who were in pretrial detention, brought an application for a stay of proceedings or damages, alleging that COVID-19 restrictions at the detention centre violated their rights.

The Crown sought summary dismissal of the application under Rule 34.02 of the Criminal Proceedings Rules.

The court found that the restrictions were reasonable and necessary responses to the pandemic, comparable to restrictions faced by the general public.

Concluding there was no reasonable prospect of success, the court summarily dismissed the application.

The accused brought an application to adjourn his joint jury trial for drug importation, scheduled to commence in less than three weeks, in order to retain counsel of choice.

The accused had previously discharged counsel and had been warned multiple times that the trial would proceed with or without counsel.

The court dismissed the adjournment application, finding that the accused had not acted diligently or in a bona fide manner to retain available counsel, and that the application was a deliberate attempt to manipulate the system to achieve a de facto severance from his co-accused.

The defendant, a pharmacist, pleaded guilty to making a false or misleading statement under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act after dispensing morphine to an undercover officer without a prescription.

The Crown sought a suspended sentence, while the defence sought a discharge.

The court found that the defendant's actions were motivated by a misguided desire to help someone he perceived to be in withdrawal, rather than for financial gain.

Considering the defendant's good character, lack of criminal record, and the potential professional repercussions of a conviction, the court granted an absolute discharge.