M. Crystal

On an application for a stay under s. 11(b) of the Charter, the court held that although total delay reached 1,316 days, 455.5 days were properly attributed to defence delay (including multiple adjournments, failures to appear, delayed election steps, and partial apportionment after late notice of delay concerns).

After deduction, net delay was 860.5 days (28.3 months), below the 30-month Jordan ceiling for Superior Court matters.

The application was dismissed.

The offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter after encouraging her co-accused to attack the victim, who subsequently died from a stab wound.

The court found the offender's active role in instigating the confrontation and her failure to render assistance to be significant aggravating factors.

After weighing the mitigating factors, including her guilty plea and lack of a significant criminal record, the court imposed a sentence of 7.5 years imprisonment, less enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody, leaving approximately 38 months to serve.

The accused, charged with historical sexual offences against his daughter and granddaughter, brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, alleging unreasonable delay.

The total delay from the swearing of the information to the end of the trial was 57 months and 10 days.

The court found that the accused engaged in deliberate and calculated tactics to delay the proceedings, including refusing to view disclosure, resisting the appointment of s. 486.3 counsel, and disputing the court's jurisdiction.

After deducting defence delay and exceptional circumstances, the net delay was 25 months, which fell below the 30-month presumptive ceiling.

The application was dismissed.

The young person appeared before the Superior Court of Justice for a detention review under section 525 of the Criminal Code.

The court raised the issue of its jurisdiction to conduct the review under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The court held that because the young person had not elected to be tried in the Superior Court, the court was not deemed a youth justice court and therefore lacked jurisdiction.

The matter was transferred to the Ontario Court of Justice.

The accused, a 79-year-old man, sought release on a detention review under s. 525 of the Criminal Code.

He was charged with attempted murder and other offences against his former common-law spouse, and subsequently breached a non-communication order while in custody.

Despite a proposed release plan involving GPS monitoring, CCTV, and sureties, and evidence that the accused may be suffering from dementia requiring assessment, the court found the plan insufficient to mitigate the risks.

The court concluded that continued detention was necessary on both the secondary and tertiary grounds.

The offender, an Indigenous man, was convicted of sexual assault, forcible confinement, assault, and threatening his former intimate partner, an Indigenous woman.

The Crown sought a global sentence of five years, while the defence sought two years.

The court weighed the aggravating factors, including the victim's vulnerability and the impact of the offences, against significant mitigating factors, particularly the offender's Indigenous background (Gladue factors), onerous bail conditions, and strong potential for rehabilitation.

The court sentenced the offender to a global term of two years' imprisonment, along with ancillary orders.

The applicant, charged with first degree murder, brought a fresh application for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter after the Court of Appeal previously overturned a stay and ordered a new trial.

The court conducted a preliminary assessment under Rule 34.02 of the Criminal Proceedings Rules.

Finding that the delay since the appellate decision was entirely attributable to the applicant's own requests for time to prepare and seek leave to appeal, the court concluded the application had no reasonable prospect of success and summarily dismissed it.

The applicant sought leave under s. 745.6 of the Criminal Code to proceed to a jury hearing for potential reduction of the 25‑year parole ineligibility period imposed for first degree murder.

The court applied the amended threshold under s. 745.61 requiring proof on a balance of probabilities that there is a substantial likelihood the application would succeed before a jury.

While the applicant demonstrated positive institutional conduct and program participation during incarceration, risk assessments continued to rate him as a moderate risk for violent recidivism and a high risk for sexual reoffending.

Considering the nature of the offence, the applicant’s criminal history, and continuing public safety concerns, the court concluded the statutory threshold was not met.