Larissa Fedak

This decision addresses the Crown's application to adjourn the trial of an in-custody accused, Daniel May, charged with violent home invasion robbery.

The Crown sought the adjournment to facilitate a joint trial with two newly arrested co-accused.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the Crown failed to demonstrate that a joint trial was in the interests of justice, particularly given the accused's expeditious efforts to proceed to trial, his in-custody status, and the speculative nature of the proposed joint trial.

The court emphasized the accused's s. 11(b) Charter rights and the right to counsel of choice.

The Crown sought an adjournment on the day of trial due to the complainant's unavailability for day surgery.

The defence opposed the application, citing the Crown's delay in subpoenaing the witness and lack of diligence.

The court applied the Darville test and considered the totality of circumstances, finding the Crown guilty of laches due to unexplained delays and lack of information regarding the complainant's surgery.

The adjournment was denied.

The accused was sentenced for robbery, assault with a weapon, and uttering threats.

The court considered the appropriate credit for pre‑sentence custody under s. 719 of the Criminal Code following the Truth in Sentencing Act amendments.

The judge held that the loss of statutory remission for pre‑trial detention does not automatically justify enhanced credit beyond the standard 1:1 ratio.

Enhanced credit may be granted only where the specific circumstances of the detention justify it.

Increased credit was granted in this case due to unusually harsh remand conditions involving prolonged cell confinement during a correctional officers’ work refusal.

The appellant appealed his sentence of 14 months' incarceration for theft and attempted break and enter.

He argued the trial judge erred by imposing consecutive sentences, failing to impose a conditional sentence, and failing to credit him for strict pre-trial bail conditions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the consecutive sentences fit, the rejection of a conditional sentence justified by the appellant's substantial risk of reoffending, and the lack of credit for pre-trial bail appropriate given the insufficient evidence of its impact.

The appellant appealed the equalization payment, spousal support, access, and costs components of a trial judgment.

The Court of Appeal varied the equalization payment to $64,000 on consent, fixed spousal support at $500 per month for three years on consent, upheld the access order based on an assessor's recommendation, and varied trial costs to $32,000.

The parties also resolved outstanding support arrears and ongoing child support.

The appeal was allowed in part.

The appellant appealed the sentence imposed for robbery and breach of probation after the sentencing judge rejected a joint submission.

The joint submission proposed a 12-month sentence, less 2-for-1 credit for pre-trial custody, plus three years of probation.

The sentencing judge instead imposed one year in addition to pre-trial custody and two years of probation.

The Court of Appeal held that the sentencing judge erred in applying the governing principles, as the joint submission was not unreasonable and would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was varied to accord with the joint submission.