The applicant brought a section 11(b) Charter motion seeking a stay of proceedings for impaired operation and drive over 80mg charges.
The applicant alleged violations of Charter rights including section 7 and 8 rights regarding video recording in police cells.
The court found that the respondent caused the adjournment of the initial trial date through late filing of its Charter response notice and late disclosure of Police Cell Videotaping Pilot Project materials, particularly Phase 2 materials unknown to the applicant.
The court calculated 12 months and 4 days of combined institutional and crown delay, substantially exceeding Morin guidelines.
The court found both inferred prejudice based on delay duration and actual prejudice in the form of financial stress to the applicant.
The application was allowed and a stay of proceedings was ordered.