Mary Waters Rodriguez

The applicant, Kim Tran, sought a stay of proceedings for unreasonable delay under section 11(b) of the Charter, arguing that the total delay of 25 months and 20 days exceeded the presumptive ceiling.

The Crown attributed the delay to a discrete event (unavailability of a police witness due to health reasons) but failed to demonstrate that it took reasonable steps to mitigate the resulting delay.

The court found that the Crown did not meet its constitutional obligation to bring the accused to trial within a reasonable time, granted the application, and stayed the charge.

The applicant, Michael Buabeng, sought a stay of proceedings under section 11(b) of the Charter, alleging unreasonable delay in his criminal prosecution for assault and sexual assault charges.

The total delay was 1,401 days (46 months), exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling for Superior Courts.

The court deducted 105 days for defence delay, resulting in a net delay of 1,296 days.

The Crown argued for exceptional circumstances, including 181 days due to uncertainty surrounding Bill C-75 amendments to preliminary inquiries and 341 days due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

After deducting these exceptional circumstances, the remaining delay was 823 days (27.4 months), falling below the presumptive ceiling.

The onus then shifted to the defence to demonstrate that the delay was nonetheless unreasonable.

The court found that the applicant failed to meet this burden, and therefore, the application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment that ordered her to pay the respondent $200,000 under a promissory note and a related oral agreement for interest.

The funds were advanced by the respondent on the appellant's behalf for an investment in Metrozen, which subsequently misappropriated the funds.

The motion judge rejected the appellant's defenses, including lack of consideration, conditional repayment, and misrepresentation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors of fact or law by the motion judge, and affirmed that the documentary record and the appellant's acknowledgments supported the judgment.