Lori Anne Thomas

The applicant brought a section 11(b) Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings on the grounds of unreasonable delay.

The applicant was charged with 10 offences on January 11, 2024, including robbery, aggravated assault, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm, discharging a firearm with intent to endanger life, and various firearm-related charges.

The trial was scheduled to proceed August 11-15, 2025, approximately 19.1 months after the charge.

The court found that while there was significant delay caused by Crown disclosure failures and mutual neglect by both parties, the defence also contributed substantially to delay through failure to make a timely election, silent reservation of election, and unavailability for multiple offered trial dates.

After deducting defence delay of 59 days, the net delay was 17.2 months, below the 18-month presumptive ceiling for Ontario Court of Justice trials.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, Herbert Meawasige, brought a motion to stay charges of assault, assault with a weapon, and three counts of failing to comply with probation, alleging a violation of his right to be tried within a reasonable time under section 11(b) of the Charter.

The trial was expected to conclude 18 months and 22 days after his charge, exceeding the presumptive ceiling set by R. v. Jordan.

The court found minimal defence delay and no evidence of the Crown's efforts to mitigate the delay, including during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Consequently, the motion was granted, and the charges were stayed.

The accused, Per Polderman, was charged with assault following an altercation with the complainant, Mipha Koh, during a breakup.

The court assessed the credibility of both parties, noting inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony, particularly regarding her prior statements, her recollection of events, and her motivations.

The court found the complainant to be the aggressor, having damaged the accused's property and assaulted him.

The accused's actions, including using his forearm to create distance and pulling the complainant from his car, were found to be reasonable acts of self-defence and defence of property under Section 35 of the Criminal Code.

The accused was acquitted of the charge.

The accused, K.L., brought an application under s. 11(b) of the Charter for unreasonable delay in a sexual assault and exploitation case.

The total delay was 20 months and 13 days, exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling.

The Crown argued the delay was an exceptional circumstance due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the case's complexity (novel defence argument, s. 276 application).

The court found the Crown failed to demonstrate reasonable steps to mitigate the nine-month delay in providing initial disclosure.

The court rejected the Crown's arguments regarding complexity and the pandemic as a blanket excuse, concluding the delay was unreasonable and staying the charges against the accused.

This ruling addresses an application by the defendant to determine whether the complainant's counsel has the right to cross-examine the defendant during a s. 276 hearing regarding the admissibility of evidence of other sexual activity.

The court held that while s. 278.94 of the Criminal Code allows the complainant to appear and make submissions, it does not grant a right to cross-examine witnesses.

The complainant remains a witness, not a party to the proceedings, and evidentiary matters fall within the purview of the Crown and Defence.

The accused, an Uber driver, was charged with unlawful confinement and assault after allegedly driving the complainant in the opposite direction of her destination and grasping her hand.

The Crown's case relied heavily on the complainant's testimony and contemporaneous text messages.

The court found significant inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence regarding her choice of seats, the conversation in the vehicle, her messaging during the ride, and her explanations for delayed responses.

Due to substantial concerns with the complainant's reliability and credibility, the court was left with a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused on both counts.