3 total
Charter delay motion failed despite lengthy pre-trial proceedings.
The applicant brought a motion seeking a stay of firearm-related charges on the basis of unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter.
Applying the Morin framework, the court examined the 1,035-day period from charge to scheduled trial, deducting waived time and excluding delay attributable to the applicant, co-accused, and inherent case requirements.
The court held that most of the impugned delay arose from institutional limits and co-accused scheduling issues, with only a limited period attributable to the Crown.
Given the minimal prejudice flowing from delay itself and the serious public interest in trying the charges, the application was dismissed.
Application for third-party police records of complainant dismissed for lacking likely relevance and temporal nexus.
At the commencement of his sexual assault trial, the accused applied under s. 278.1 of the Criminal Code for disclosure of Toronto Police Service occurrence reports relating to the complainant.
The accused argued the records, which included a 2009 finding that the complainant was not criminally responsible in an unrelated matter, were relevant to her credibility and reliability.
The court dismissed the application, finding the records were sought solely for impermissible impeachment purposes, lacked a temporal nexus to the alleged assault, and did not meet the threshold of likely relevance required for production.
Corbett application granted; accused’s minor post‑offence record excluded from cross‑examination.
The accused brought a Corbett application seeking to exclude his criminal record from being used for cross‑examination should he testify at trial on a sexual assault charge.
The record consisted of three minor convictions arising after the alleged offence and did not involve crimes of dishonesty.
The court held that the probative value of the record for credibility assessment was minimal and that its admission risked unfair prejudice and improper propensity reasoning before the jury.
Given the central credibility contest between the complainant and the accused and the absence of any character attack on the complainant, the balance favoured exclusion.
