Stephanie E. Baker

The Crown appealed an acquittal on multiple sexual offence charges involving a child complainant.

The appeal court held that, read in the context of the evidence and submissions, the trial judge's reasons did not disclose why he found a conflict of equally credible evidence or how he arrived at reasonable doubt.

Applying the governing framework on sufficiency of reasons and the principles associated with W. (D.), the court found the verdict could not be meaningfully reviewed on appeal.

The acquittal was set aside and the matter remitted for a new trial, but convictions were not substituted.

The Crown appealed a trial judge's order staying charges against the respondents due to unreasonable delay under s 11(b) of the Charter.

The Crown argued the trial judge made several errors in attributing delay and assessing prejudice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's analysis consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in Godin.

The Court emphasized deference to the trial judge's knowledge of local court practices and her strong factual findings regarding the prejudice suffered by the respondents over the 25-month delay.