Marco Gaspar

The court granted a stay of proceedings under section 24(1) of the Charter after finding that the delay in bringing Christopher Vaughan to trial, while technically under the 30-month ceiling set by R. v. Jordan, was markedly longer than it reasonably should have been.

The delay was caused by a major disclosure failure by the Crown and chronic institutional delays in Brampton, as well as the Crown’s decision to prefer a direct indictment, which further prolonged the proceedings.

The court found that the Applicant had acted reasonably throughout and that the Crown was responsible for the delay.

The indictment was stayed.

This ruling addresses a Garofoli application brought by the defendant, Kingslee Christie, challenging the facial validity of an Information to Obtain (ITO) a search warrant.

The defendant argued that the heavily redacted ITO, which protected confidential informer (CI) identities, lacked sufficient evidence to establish reasonable grounds for searching his residence.

The court reviewed the Garofoli six-step procedure, particularly step six, which permits reliance on redacted material through judicial summaries.

The court found that the defendant was able to meaningfully challenge the redacted information and that the CI information met the "credible, compelling, and corroborated" criteria.

Ultimately, the court concluded that the ITO contained sufficient information to establish reasonable grounds for the search warrant, and therefore, the application to quash the warrant was dismissed.

The Monitor brought a motion for an extension of the stay period under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) and authorization to make distributions from the Bremner Project Settlement Proceeds Reserve and the Niagara Project Settlement Proceeds Reserve.

The proposed distributions were to prioritize post-filing amounts, then proven priority claims (including lien claims under the Construction Lien Act), followed by repayment of certain outstanding amounts, and finally, any remaining balance for general unsecured creditors.

The motion was unopposed.

The court found the proposed distributions appropriate and the extension of the stay period reasonable, satisfying the good faith and due diligence requirements of the CCAA.

The applicants, convicted of producing over 500 marihuana plants, brought a constitutional challenge against the two-year mandatory minimum sentence under s. 7(2)(b)(v) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

They argued the provision violated s. 12 of the Charter.

The court found that while the sentence was not grossly disproportionate for the applicants themselves, it was grossly disproportionate for reasonably foreseeable hypothetical offenders, such as those involved in regulatory licensing infractions.

The court concluded the provision violated s. 12, was not saved by s. 1, and declared it of no force or effect.

Olanrewaju Lisboa sought a Rowbotham order for state-funded counsel in a complex criminal trial involving drug trafficking charges.

While the parties agreed on the complexity of the matter and the applicant's exhaustion of Legal Aid appeals, the court dismissed the application.

The court found that the applicant failed to meet the indigence test, primarily due to insufficient, inconsistent, and unreliable financial disclosure, and a lack of effort to plan for legal costs.

The court also noted that the applicant's own conduct in failing to provide complete information to Legal Aid Ontario disentitled him to funding.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in reviewing the search warrant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge applied the correct test and reasonably concluded the authorizing justice could have issued the warrant.