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.