Mario Thomaidis

The applicant brought a motion to stay proceedings on the grounds that his right to be tried within a reasonable time under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms had been breached.

The applicant was arrested for impaired driving (over 80) in November 2014, with the Information sworn in December 2014.

A trial date was initially set for December 9, 2015, but was adjourned due to late disclosure issues.

The trial ultimately proceeded on June 22-23, 2016, with the 11(b) application heard on July 18, 2016.

The court applied the new framework established in R. v. Jordan and found that the total delay of 19 months and 24 days exceeded the presumptive 18-month ceiling for provincial court trials.

The court found no exceptional circumstances to rebut the presumption of unreasonableness and granted the stay of proceedings.

The accused was charged with Operation Over 80 following a motor vehicle stop.

The defence challenged the admissibility of breath test results, arguing that the samples were not taken as soon as practicable as required by the Criminal Code.

The court examined the timeline of events from the initial stop through the taking of breath samples, identifying both explained and unexplained delays.

Despite finding the case borderline, the court concluded that the breath tests were taken within a reasonably prompt time under the circumstances and admitted the evidence.

The accused was found guilty.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood, contrary to the Criminal Code.

The Crown relied on breath sample evidence obtained at the police station.

The defence raised Charter applications alleging violations of sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found that the officer failed to make a valid demand for the approved screening device immediately upon forming reasonable suspicion, unlawfully detained the accused at the roadside without informing him of his detention or reasons therefor, and failed to advise the accused of his right to counsel.

The court excluded the breath sample evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding that admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The charge was dismissed.

The accused was charged with two counts of criminal harassment against two complainants arising from a dispute over computer repair services.

The complainants alleged the accused made repeated calls with heavy breathing, sent threatening text messages, and made verbal threats regarding the return of a computer.

The accused denied the allegations and claimed his phone number always appeared on caller ID.

The court found the complainants' evidence credible and consistent, but determined that while the accused's conduct was rude and disregarded basic civility, the complainants did not experience a reasonable fear for their safety as required by the criminal harassment statute.

The accused was acquitted on both counts.

The respondents brought a motion to exclude computer forensics evidence and a motion for a non-suit in an insider trading and tipping proceeding.

They argued that the software-generated evidence was unreliable hearsay and that the expert witness was biased and unqualified.

They also argued that Staff failed to establish a prima facie case.

The Commission dismissed the motion to exclude, finding that the software evidence possessed sufficient threshold reliability and that the expert's evidence was admissible, with issues of reliability going to weight.

The Commission also dismissed the non-suit motion, concluding that Staff's circumstantial evidence, taken at its highest, gave rise to reasonable inferences capable of supporting the allegations.