2 total
Stay of proceedings granted for unreasonable delay; net delay of 19 months exceeded Jordan ceiling.
The accused, charged with distributing an intimate image, applied for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, alleging unreasonable delay.
The total delay was 762 days.
The Crown argued that 341 days were attributable to the defence.
The court analyzed five periods of delay, deducting 191 days for defence-caused delay, including failure to retain counsel promptly, failure to conduct a timely Crown pre-trial, and delay in scheduling the trial.
The court declined to deduct time for defence unavailability during a later scheduling recanvass due to an insufficient evidentiary record.
The net delay of 571 days (approximately 19 months) exceeded the 18-month presumptive ceiling.
As the Crown did not rely on exceptional circumstances, the application was granted and a stay of proceedings was ordered.
The court enforced a settlement agreement, finding the self-represented plaintiff's lawyer had authority to bind her.
The defendants and third party moved to enforce a settlement agreement reached on November 12, 2024, at an exit pre-trial conference.
The plaintiff, a self-represented litigant, sought to repudiate the settlement, alleging that her lawyer, Eli Karp, lacked authority to settle and that the settlement was procured under duress with overbroad release language.
The court found that the parties entered into a binding settlement with all essential terms agreed upon, that Karp had both actual and ostensible authority to settle, and that the settlement was not procured under duress or through misrepresentation.
The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments regarding the adequacy of the settlement amount and the scope of the releases, finding them to be standard and reasonable.
The motion to enforce the settlement was granted.
