Peter M. Brauti

The accused, a police officer, was charged with assault causing bodily harm after mistakenly entering the wrong apartment during a domestic assault call and physically detaining the occupant.

The Crown conceded the detention was lawful but argued the manner and force used were unreasonable.

The court found the complainant's testimony unreliable and accepted the officer's account that the force used was minimal and tailored to the volatile circumstances.

The court held the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the force was reasonably unnecessary under s. 25(1) of the Criminal Code, and the charge was dismissed.

The Crown appealed a trial judge's decision to stay serious charges against six police officers due to unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The trial judge had attributed the 56-month delay primarily to the Crown's failure to make timely disclosure.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal for five of the officers, finding the trial judge erred in attributing the delay to disclosure issues rather than the inherent time requirements of a highly complex case.

A new trial was ordered for those five officers.

However, the Court dismissed the appeal regarding the sixth officer, finding the delay in his much simpler case was unreasonable because the Crown unnecessarily insisted his trial follow the complex trial of his co-accused.