T. David

The accused brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter, alleging a violation of his s. 11(b) right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The total delay from charge to the anticipated end of trial was 22.5 months, exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling for the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Crown argued that exceptional circumstances, including the COVID-19 pandemic and the time required to vet a search warrant involving a confidential informant, justified the delay.

The court rejected these arguments, finding that the primary cause of the delay was the police's unacceptable and apathetic approach to providing disclosure.

After deducting 89 days for continuing trial dates and 9 days for officer illness, the net delay remained over 19 months.

The application was granted and a stay of proceedings was ordered.

The accused, charged with sexual assault, sought to confirm his right to a trial by judge and jury.

The Crown argued that the accused must be tried by judge alone because the Crown had not expressly consented to the accused's re-election to a jury trial at the assignment court.

The Superior Court of Justice held that the Crown's conduct at the assignment court, where the Crown Attorney actively participated in scheduling a jury trial without objection, constituted a clear and unequivocal waiver of the procedural requirement for express consent.

The court confirmed the accused's right to a trial by judge and jury.

The Crown applied to have the respondent designated a Dangerous Offender following his convictions for overcoming resistance by choking, uttering a threat to cause bodily harm, forcible confinement, and sexual assault causing bodily harm.

The court found that the predicate offences were serious personal injury offences and that the respondent constituted a threat to the public due to a pattern of repetitive, persistent, and aggressive behaviour, as well as a failure to control his sexual impulses.

Concluding that a determinate sentence followed by a long-term supervision order would not adequately protect the public, the court designated the respondent a Dangerous Offender and imposed an indeterminate sentence.

The accused was charged with dangerous driving, assault with a weapon, fail to remain, assault, and uttering threats following an altercation that began outside a nightclub, continued on the road, and culminated in a McDonald's parking lot.

The court found the accused guilty of dangerous driving and assault with a weapon for deliberately driving his SUV at and striking a pedestrian in the parking lot, as well as failing to remain at the scene.

The accused was acquitted of the assault and uttering threats charges due to reasonable doubt arising from conflicting testimony and the fast-paced nature of the physical altercation.

The Crown sought to adduce a statement made by the accused to police after he turned himself in.

The accused had refused to be video or audio recorded but agreed to answer questions, which the officer noted down.

The defence opposed the admission of the statement, arguing it was involuntary due to the police's failure to video record the interview as required by appellate jurisprudence.

The court found that the police did not deliberately avoid recording the statement, but rather respected the accused's refusal to be recorded while answering questions.

The court concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the statement was voluntary and admissible.