Michael James Bryant

The appellant was convicted of luring a child for sexual purposes and sentenced to nine months in custody.

He appealed the conviction, the trial judge's dismissal of his Charter s. 11(b) application (right to trial within a reasonable time), and the sentence.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding the trial judge's reasons satisfactory despite being fragmented due to computer issues.

The court dismissed the 11(b) application, finding no Charter breach as the net delay to verdict was 13 months, five months under the Jordan ceiling.

However, the court found the sentencing reasons problematic due to inconsistencies between the oral and written decisions and lack of consideration for mitigating factors.

The sentence was reduced from ten months to six months.

The Crown appealed a stay of proceedings granted to the respondent for a violation of her Charter s. 11(b) right to a trial within a reasonable time.

The trial judge found the total delay exceeded the 18-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan and that the Crown failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances or reasonable steps to mitigate the delay following an adjournment caused by a witness's medical emergency.

The Superior Court dismissed the Crown's appeal, affirming the trial judge's implicit findings that no delay was attributable to the defence and that the Crown had not taken reasonable steps to secure an earlier trial date after the initial adjournment.

The Crown brought a prima facie application under section 672.33 of the Criminal Code to determine whether sufficient evidence existed to put the respondent on trial for assault causing bodily harm.

The respondent had been found unfit to stand trial in 2010 and remained under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Review Board.

The court addressed two issues: (1) whether the application was brought within the required two-year timeframe and whether an extension was warranted under section 672.33(1.1), and (2) whether the Crown's evidentiary material was adequate.

The court found that while the application was brought approximately seven weeks beyond the two-year anniversary date, an extension was necessary for the proper administration of justice given the circumstances.

The court also found the Crown's affidavit evidence sufficient to establish a prima facie case.

Media appellants challenged the federal election provision prohibiting the broadcasting, publication, or dissemination of new opinion survey results during the final three days of an election campaign.

The majority held that the ban infringed freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter and was not justified under s. 1 because the measure was overbroad, underinclusive, and failed minimal impairment.

The Court accepted that guarding against the possible influence of inaccurate late polls was a pressing and substantial objective, but found the evidentiary basis for broad deference insufficient and emphasized the central constitutional value of political expression.

The appeal was allowed and the provision was declared of no force or effect.

The moving party brought a motion to abridge time and expedite the hearing of its appeal.

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the motion, holding that while the Court could accommodate the parties and Attorneys General, it could not abridge the time granted under Rule 18(2) for unknown potential interveners to apply for intervener status.

The Court emphasized its unwillingness to deny potential litigants their right to seek intervener status in an important matter.