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.