Mangesh S. Duggal

A corporation charged under the Occupational Health and Safety Act for failing to secure a ladder, resulting in a worker's fall, brought Charter motions seeking a stay of proceedings pursuant to sections 11(b) and 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging unreasonable delay, abuse of process, and denial of the right to a fair trial.

The court dismissed the motions, finding that while delay occurred, it did not breach the corporation's fair trial rights.

The court held that pre-charge delay is generally not protected by section 11(b) unless there is bad faith, and that a corporate accused must establish irremediable prejudice to succeed on such applications.

The court found no irremediable prejudice and that institutional delay was within acceptable guidelines.

Two accused persons charged with possession of property obtained by crime over $5,000 sought to vary the conditions of their undertaking to permit travel to Pakistan to care for an elderly, ill parent and manage property interests.

The Crown opposed the variation, arguing the accused would not return to the jurisdiction.

The court granted the application, finding the Crown had not met its onus on a Crown onus case.

The court considered the accused's ties to Canada, their history of returning from previous Pakistan visits, their cooperation with the court process, and the presumption of innocence.

The court varied the undertaking to permit international travel subject to conditions including advance notice of travel itineraries and restrictions on contact with specified individuals and locations.

The defendant was charged with failing to stop for a red light contrary to Section 144(18) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The charge arose from a motor vehicle collision at the intersection of Main Street and Queen Street in Brampton on April 10, 2015.

The defendant claimed she had a green light when she proceeded through the intersection; the Crown presented evidence from an independent witness and post-accident observations of traffic light functionality.

The court applied the W.D. analysis and found the defendant's evidence of a green light was not credible and did not raise a reasonable doubt.

The court convicted the defendant.

A bail hearing concerning a 21-year-old accused facing multiple serious charges including robbery with an imitation firearm, unlawful confinement, break and enters, and various breaches of bail conditions.

The Crown sought detention on secondary grounds (substantial likelihood of further offences), while the defence argued the accused could be released with appropriate sureties.

The court found the proposed plan of release inadequate due to inconsistencies in surety testimony, lack of clear communication and coordination among sureties, and evidence suggesting planning and deception rather than impetuous conduct.

The court detained the accused on secondary grounds, finding that community supervision was insufficient to address the serious concerns.

The defendant was charged with "Follow Too Closely" contrary to section 158(1) of the Highway Traffic Act on December 5, 2011.

The defendant brought a Charter application under sections 11(b) and 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, arguing that the overall delay of 14 months was excessive for a minor provincial offence.

The court found that the defendant's rights to trial within a reasonable time were infringed, with institutional delay and Crown actions accounting for 11.5 months of the total delay.

The court granted a stay of proceedings.