M. Bulbrook (Agent for A. MacDonald

Craig Harris-Lowe applied for a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter, alleging a violation of his right to a trial within a reasonable time under s. 11(b).

The court analyzed the total delay from charge to anticipated trial conclusion, deducting periods attributable to defence conduct and exceptional circumstances (COVID-19 pandemic).

The court found significant defence-caused delays, including repeated failures to schedule resolution meetings and attend court.

Despite the total delay exceeding the presumptive ceiling, the net delay, after deductions, fell below it.

The application for a stay was denied as the defence failed to demonstrate meaningful, sustained efforts to expedite proceedings or that the case took markedly longer than it reasonably should have.

The appellant, David Loucks, appealed his conviction for assault causing bodily harm.

The appeal was based on four grounds: the trial judge's misapprehension of evidence regarding the appellant's testimony, the failure to admit photographic evidence, the failure to properly scrutinize the complainant's intoxication, and the failure to appreciate the significance of the lack of blood in the home.

The appellate court found that a minor misapprehension of evidence regarding a thumb injury was peripheral to the trial judge's reasoning and did not warrant intervention.

While the exclusion of photographic evidence was an error, it did not amount to a miscarriage of justice as the conviction was based on other credible evidence.

The trial judge was found to have appropriately considered the complainant's intoxication.

The appeal was dismissed, upholding the conviction.

The defendants brought a motion for a declaration that the plaintiff's injuries from an automobile accident did not meet the verbal threshold under the Insurance Act, which would bar recovery for non-pecuniary general damages and healthcare expenses.

The court found that the plaintiff, Balbir Mann, failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he suffered a permanent, serious impairment of an important bodily function.

The plaintiff's credibility as a historian was significantly undermined by inconsistencies in his testimony, reports to doctors, and surveillance video footage.

Consequently, the expert opinions based on his unreliable self-reports were also deemed unreliable.

The court allowed the defendants' motion, dismissing the plaintiff's action for non-pecuniary general damages and healthcare expenses.

In a personal injury jury trial, the plaintiff sought to introduce evidence of two litigation loans taken post-accident to cover medical, rehabilitation, and living expenses.

The defendants objected, arguing the loans were not recoverable as damages due to remoteness and foreseeability, and that pre-judgment interest already compensated for loss of use of money.

The court ruled the evidence inadmissible, finding that neither the principal nor interest on litigation loans are recoverable as damages, as they are too remote and not reasonably foreseeable to the defendant at the time of the accident.

Public policy considerations, including the existence of statutory pre-judgment interest and the potential for encouraging high-interest loans, also weighed against admissibility.

The accused was charged with impaired driving.

A Charter application was brought challenging the reasonable and probable grounds for the breathalyzer test based on the possibility of residual mouth alcohol affecting the accuracy of the roadside device.

The court distinguished the case from R. v. Becker on three grounds: the presence of a passenger who admitted to drinking, the beverages being at room temperature rather than cold, and the officer's administration of a residual mouth alcohol disclaimer to which the accused responded that consumption was an hour prior.

The court found no Charter breach and entered a finding of guilt.

The appellant, Valentine Ngoddy, appealed his conviction for sexually assaulting a developmentally delayed complainant.

The complainant did not testify at trial, and her hearsay statement was admitted for its truth.

The Superior Court of Justice, on appeal, found that the trial judge erred in admitting the hearsay statement.

The court determined that the statement lacked sufficient threshold reliability, as factors such as spontaneity were overemphasized, repeated assertions were improperly used as corroboration, and the absence of a motive to fabricate was incorrectly treated as a positive indicator of reliability.

Furthermore, the court found no functional alternative to cross-examination, given the inconsistencies in the complainant's various statements and her cognitive limitations.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and an acquittal was entered.

The accused was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking in marihuana following a CDSA search of an apartment in Toronto during a major gang investigation called Project Battery.

The Crown alleged that police found the defendant sleeping in plain view of a large quantity of marihuana (1114.2 grams) spread throughout the apartment.

The defence challenged both the element of possession and the validity of the search warrant under the Charter.

The court found that the Crown had proven possession beyond a reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence including the defendant's use of a key to access the apartment, his association with known drug traffickers, and his presence in the apartment with the drugs.

The court also found that the search warrant was properly issued based on reasonable grounds.

The evidence was admitted and the accused was found guilty.

This is a temporary care hearing under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act concerning three children.

The Children's Aid Society sought placement determination among three competing family plans: the maternal grandmother, the mother, and the father.

The court determined that the maternal grandmother had acquired "charge" of the children through a series of voluntary relinquishments by the parents beginning in March 2015, and that this status was maintained through subsequent kinship and temporary care agreements.

The court found that a supervision order was sufficient to mitigate risk and placed the children with the maternal grandmother subject to supervision terms.

The court also directed the Society to update its Plan of Care to address services for the children and adjourned the matter to permit parties to negotiate terms of parental access.

The accused brought a motion to stay charges of Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking in Marihuana under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging undue delay.

The accused was arrested and charged in May 2014 and scheduled for trial in April 2016, approximately 22 months later.

The Crown opposed the stay application.

The court found that while the Participation charge was weak and should have been laid sooner, the Crown had discretion in a complex multi-accused prosecution involving extensive disclosure and multiple judicial pre-trials.

The court concluded that the accused's security interests were not violated and that he had not suffered unacceptable prejudice from undue delay.

The application was dismissed and the trial proceeded.