M. Fabre

The accused, Shawn Folkes, brought an application to stay proceedings for unreasonable delay under ss. 11(b) and 24(1) of the Charter.

The total delay was 19 months and 1 day, with a net delay of 18.5 months after deducting 16 days of defence delay.

This exceeded the 18-month Jordan ceiling for summary conviction matters.

The Crown argued that the delay in arresting Mr. Folkes (May 12, 2023, to August 27, 2023) should be considered a deductible discrete event due to police safety concerns.

However, the court found that the police did not make reasonable efforts to arrest or contact Mr. Folkes, despite knowing his residence and having previous contact information.

The Crown failed to demonstrate that the delay was reasonably unavoidable or that reasonable steps were taken to remedy it.

Consequently, the presumption of unreasonable delay was not rebutted, and the application was allowed, staying the charges.

The Crown applied for an order under section 486.3 of the Criminal Code to appoint counsel to cross-examine two witnesses, Mandi Lalonde and John Lalonde, in the trial of Shawn Folkes, who is self-represented and charged with five offences including uttering threats and mischief.

The Crown argued that the charges were "in respect of" criminal harassment, making the order mandatory under s. 486.3(2), or alternatively, discretionary under s. 486.3(3) to ensure full and candid testimony given the witnesses' fear.

The court granted the application, finding that the charges were substantively "in respect of" criminal harassment and that appointing counsel was in the interest of the proper administration of justice, dismissing the accused's concerns about bias and counsel's preparedness.

This is a summary conviction appeal from convictions for over-80 impaired driving and failing to remain at the scene of an accident.

The appellant challenged the trial judge's finding of identity, arguing his post-arrest utterances were ambiguous and that the trial judge reversed the burden of proof.

The appellant also challenged the dismissal of his s. 8 Charter application, asserting a lack of reasonable and probable grounds for detention and arrest.

The appellate court dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial judge's common-sense interpretation of the utterances as an admission of driving and upholding the finding of reasonable and probable grounds for arrest based on the totality of evidence.

Neeshard Mohammed was tried for operating a conveyance with over 80 mgs of alcohol.

He challenged the admissibility of breath samples, alleging Charter violations (ss. 8, 9, 10(b)) related to the immediacy of the Approved Screening Device (ASD) demand and his right to counsel.

The court found a technical s.10(b) Charter violation due to a 5-minute delay in the ASD arrival and the officer's insufficient basis for assuming timely arrival, which meant the Crown could not justify the suspension of the right to counsel during that period.

However, the court found no other Charter violations regarding informational duties or waiver, as the accused clearly understood his rights and repeatedly chose not to exercise them.

Applying the Grant test under s.24(2) of the Charter, the court determined that the police conduct was not serious and the impact on the accused's Charter rights was negligible, weighing against exclusion.

Society's interest in adjudication on the merits, given the reliable breath sample evidence, also favored admission.

Consequently, the breath samples were admitted, leading to a finding of guilt for the Over 80 mgs offence.

W.V. pleaded guilty to one count of sexual assault against his younger foster-sister, J.D., for abuse spanning 8 years during their childhood.

The court was tasked with sentencing W.V., considering his self-representation, Indigenous roots (though limited information was available for Gladue principles), and the historical nature of the offences.

The Crown sought an 8-year imprisonment.

The court imposed a 7-year imprisonment, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, while giving significant credit for W.V.'s exceptional remorse, guilty plea, and cooperation in revealing the full extent of the abuse.

Ancillary orders included a DNA order, SOIRA registration for 20 years, and a no-contact order with the victim.

The accused, Seleshi Robi, was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle.

The defence argued involuntary intoxication, claiming the accused was unaware that the traditional Ethiopian drink, Tej, consumed at a church celebration, contained alcohol.

The defence also attributed erratic driving and physical observations to extreme fatigue and back pain.

The court found the accused's testimony regarding his lack of knowledge about Tej's alcohol content and his English comprehension to be incredible and unreliable, given his statements to police and the nature of the drink.

The court concluded that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol, dismissing the defence of involuntary intoxication and finding the accused guilty.