Megan Stuckey

The accused, Jacob Olmstead, brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, alleging unreasonable delay.

The total delay from charge to anticipated end of trial was 27 months and 23 days, exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling established by R. v. Jordan.

The central issue was how to treat the delay caused by the COVID-19 pandemic as an exceptional circumstance.

The court found that the entire period from June 9, 2020, to March 2, 2021, was a discrete, exceptional circumstance caused by the pandemic.

After deducting this period, the remaining delay fell below the presumptive ceiling.

Consequently, the court determined the delay was not unreasonable and dismissed the accused's application.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a notice regarding a publication ban under section 517 of the Criminal Code.

The underlying decision in the applicant's motion contains information covered by the non-publication order imposed at the bail hearing in the court below.

The full decision will be available once the publication ban ceases to be in effect.

The accused, Jacob Olmstead, brought a pre-trial application challenging a search warrant for his residence, alleging a violation of his s. 8 Charter right against unreasonable search and seizure, and seeking the exclusion of evidence.

The challenge was based on claims that the warrant was overbroad, the Information to Obtain (ITO) lacked sufficient basis, and the affiant made material misrepresentations and omissions.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the ITO, despite being imperfectly written, provided a sufficient and reasonable basis for the warrant's issuance, and that the alleged flaws did not undermine the reasonable grounds.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a 2000 child support order, seeking to terminate support for his adult son who receives ODSP benefits.

The applicant mother sought retroactive and ongoing child support.

The court found that the son, who has ADHD and a learning disability, qualifies as a 'child' under the amended section 31 of the Family Law Act, and that the amendment applies retroactively to his 18th birthday.

The court ordered retroactive child support from 2015 to 2018 due to the father's increased income and failure to disclose, and ordered ongoing support under section 3(2)(b) of the Child Support Guidelines, taking into account the son's ODSP benefits and the parents' means.