M. Quigley

The accused, charged with multiple offences across three dates including uttering death threats, unlawful confinement, and weapons offences against his wife, applied to sever the charges into separate trials.

The court dismissed the application, finding a strong factual and legal nexus between the events, a risk of inconsistent verdicts given the complainant's recantation, and that evidence from each incident would likely be admissible in the others to provide context and establish post-offence conduct.

The applicants, charged with possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking and production of marijuana, brought an application for a stay of proceedings alleging a violation of their s. 11(b) Charter rights.

The anticipated delay from charge to the end of trial was over 48 months.

The Crown argued that much of the delay was attributable to the applicants' co-accused and should be counted as defence delay.

The court applied the framework from R. v. Jordan, finding that the delay of one accused cannot be automatically attributed to co-accused.

The court found that the applicants were responsible for very little delay and had repeatedly asserted their desire to move the matter forward.

The net delay significantly exceeded the 30-month ceiling for superior court trials, and the Crown failed to establish exceptional circumstances to justify it.

The application was granted and the proceedings were stayed.

The accused was charged with assault causing bodily harm contrary to section 267(b) of the Criminal Code for an incident occurring on December 14, 2014, involving his ex-partner.

The Crown alleged multiple punches to the face causing significant injuries requiring surgical intervention.

The defence claimed self-defence, asserting the complainant attacked with a broken beer bottle and held him by the hair.

The trial judge rejected the accused's credibility based on physical disparities between the parties, the severity and distribution of injuries, photographic evidence, and threatening statements made on video prior to the incident.

The court found the complainant's evidence largely credible and consistent with objective evidence.

The accused was convicted.

The accused was charged with four criminal offences (driving while disqualified twice and failing to comply with probation twice) and two Highway Traffic Act offences (failing to remain at the scene of an accident and failing to report the accident).

At a judicial interim release hearing, the Crown sought detention on the secondary ground (public safety).

The accused's mother offered to act as surety with a $5,000 pledge and proposed a house arrest plan with parental supervision.

The court found the accused had an extensive criminal record with 32 convictions in six years, including 11 convictions in the eight months preceding the hearing.

Despite the proposed release plan appearing adequate on paper, the court was not satisfied it would be effective given the accused's pattern of non-compliance with court orders and disregard for conditions.

The court ordered detention on the secondary ground.