3 total
Charter delay clock resets to zero when a conviction is set aside and a reopening granted.
The applicant sought a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, alleging unreasonable delay.
The applicant was originally charged with a Highway Traffic Act offence, acquitted at trial, but a new trial was ordered on appeal.
The applicant failed to attend the retrial and was convicted, but successfully applied to reopen the proceeding, resulting in a third trial date.
The court held that, following R. v. J.F., the constitutional clock reset to zero when the reopening was granted and a new trial ordered.
As the delay from the reopening order to the third trial was only three months, well below the 18-month presumptive ceiling, the application was dismissed.
The court upheld convictions for COVID-19 order violations but reduced the fines due to fresh evidence of financial hardship.
The Ontario Court of Justice dismissed the appeals against conviction of Mehendran Kandiah and Rhenu Jewellery Inc. for violating COVID-19 public health orders but allowed the sentence appeals, reducing the fines imposed.
The court found no loss of jurisdiction despite procedural irregularities and emphasized the importance of specific and general deterrence in regulatory offences, especially during a public health crisis.
The decision highlights the court's approach to jurisdictional challenges, the admissibility and impact of fresh financial evidence on sentencing, and the balancing of deterrence with proportionality and restraint in fines for corporate and individual offenders.
The defendants were convicted of failing to comply with environmental orders after their due diligence and officially induced error defences were rejected.
The defendant, Baldev Kumar (Dave) Madan, and his numbered company 0558154 B.C. Ltd. were charged with failing to comply with Provincial Officer's Orders issued under the Environmental Protection Act.
The orders required the defendants to retain qualified waste management professionals to assess and classify waste at two Hamilton properties (249 Hess Street North and 245 Catharine Street North) by specified deadlines in 2010.
The Crown proved that the defendants owned the properties, which contained hazardous waste materials including drums of unknown liquids, electroplating chemicals, and other industrial waste.
The defendants failed to comply with the orders and provided no credible evidence of having retained qualified professionals.
The court found the defendants guilty of strict liability offences and rejected the due diligence defence, as the defendants failed to demonstrate reasonable efforts to comply with the orders.
