Appeared as counsel in 16 cases (1995–2014)
3 total
Stay of proceedings for unreasonable delay denied; 26-month delay justified by case complexity.
The applicants, five co-accused in a complex drug trafficking prosecution, applied for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, arguing unreasonable trial delay.
The anticipated delay was approximately 26 months, exceeding the 18-month ceiling for provincial court trials.
The court dismissed the application, finding that the case was 'particularly complex' under the Jordan framework due to voluminous disclosure (over 75,000 pages), multiple judicial authorizations, and the nature of the joint prosecution.
The court also found that the Crown had developed and followed a concrete plan to minimize delay.
Despite finding that an Ontario Court of Justice judge lacked jurisdiction to authorize a video surveillance warrant, the court admitted the resulting evidence under section 24(2) due to police good faith.
The applicants brought a motion challenging the validity of three general warrants (dated June 30, August 13, and October 8, 2015) authorizing video surveillance and covert entries at 691 Bank Street in Ottawa as part of Project Step, a drug trafficking investigation.
The central issue was whether an Ontario Court of Justice judge had jurisdiction to authorize video surveillance under section 487.01(4) of the Criminal Code, or whether such authorization required a Superior Court of Justice judge.
The court found that the applicants had standing to challenge the warrants based on a reasonable expectation of privacy in the hallway, albeit attenuated.
The court determined that video surveillance warrants must be signed by a Superior Court judge, not an Ontario Court of Justice judge, rendering the June 30 warrant invalid.
However, the court severed the covert entry portion of the June 30 warrant, which remained valid.
The court also quashed the portions of the August 13 and October 8 warrants authorizing entries into unit C, as the information supporting those entries was derived from the unlawful hallway surveillance.
Despite these findings, the court admitted all evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding that exclusion would bring the administration of justice into disrepute given the good faith conduct of police and the attenuated privacy interests involved.
The court stayed youth sexual assault charges for unreasonable delay, establishing a 15-month presumptive ceiling.
A young person charged with sexual interference and sexual assault brought a section 11(b) Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings based on unreasonable delay.
The applicant was charged on October 20, 2016, with trial scheduled to conclude by August 8, 2018, representing a total delay of 21.5 months.
The court found that the Crown's inadvertent disclosure of over 1,500 pages of text messages without proper section 278 application, combined with the Crown's failure to recognize the section 278 implications for over 14 months, constituted the primary source of delay.
After deducting defence waiver and defence-caused delay, the court calculated net delay at 18.6 months (or 19.2 months including deliberation time), exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling.
The Crown failed to establish exceptional circumstances to justify the delay.
The court also established a 15-month presumptive ceiling for young persons, finding that the 18-month ceiling applicable to adults does not adequately account for the heightened prejudice experienced by youth.
The charges were stayed.
