The accused brought a pre‑trial application seeking a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter alleging breach of the right to trial within a reasonable time under s. 11(b).
The case involved numerous sexual offences and child pornography charges and required extensive forensic analysis of electronic devices and categorization of thousands of images and videos.
Applying the analytical framework from Morin, the court assessed the overall delay, waiver, reasons for delay, institutional delay, and prejudice to the accused.
While the total delay approached two years, the court found much of the delay attributable to the inherent complexity of the case and investigative requirements, with only a short period attributable to the Crown.
The court concluded there was no significant prejudice and that the delay was not unreasonable in the circumstances.
