The accused applied under s. 591(3)(b) of the Criminal Code for severance of his trial from that of a co‑accused in a large wiretap drug‑trafficking prosecution.
He argued that waiting for the co‑accused’s Garofoli challenge to the wiretap authorizations would delay his trial and infringe his right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter.
The court reviewed the governing principles, including the presumption that alleged co‑conspirators should be tried jointly and the need to balance prejudice to the accused against the public interest in efficient proceedings.
Given the substantial evidentiary overlap, the complexity of the investigation, and the efficiency of a single trial, the accused failed to rebut the presumption favouring joint trials.
