Mark Edward Ertel

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault and the resulting sentence.

He argued that the trial judge made four significant errors in his instructions to the jury, including failing to address the defence theory of fabrication regarding delayed disclosure, misstating the evidence about when the appellant asked for intercourse, giving confusing instructions on consent related to age difference, and introducing undefined legal terms during a re-charge.

The Court of Appeal agreed that the cumulative effect of these deficiencies in the jury charge warranted setting aside the conviction and ordering a new trial.

The applicant, the United States of America, sought a review of a decision granting interim release to the respondent pending extradition proceedings for alleged drug trafficking and money laundering.

The applicant argued the bail judge erred in principle, particularly regarding the use of electronic monitoring and the role of the local police.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle, holding that the bail judge properly assessed the flight risk and crafted appropriate conditions, including electronic monitoring, without improperly delegating risk assessment or exceeding jurisdiction.

The application for review was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal that set aside a stay of proceedings and remitted the matter to trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeals, applying the principles from R. v. Morin.

The Court held that there was no unreasonable delay within the meaning of s. 11(b) of the Charter and ordered that the trial be expedited.