M. Mirza

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of a restricted firearm with ammunition and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The court accepted a joint submission for a global sentence of 4.5 years imprisonment.

Applying Summers credit and enhanced Duncan credit for harsh pre-sentence custody conditions, the sentence was reduced to time served.

Ancillary orders included a lifetime weapons prohibition and forfeiture of seized items.

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings based on alleged prosecutorial and police misconduct, arguing that the conduct breached his right to a fair trial under sections 7 and 24(1) of the Charter, or violated his right to make full answer and defence.

The court reviewed the legal principles for a stay of proceedings, including the two categories of abuse of process (trial fairness and residual category) and the three-part test from R. v. Babos.

The court found that while mistakes were made by the Crown and police regarding disclosure and a Zoom meeting incident, there was no deliberate misconduct.

The court concluded that the applicant's right to a fair trial was not infringed, nor was the integrity of the justice system undermined.

The application for a stay was dismissed.

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings for unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The court analyzed the total delay, defence delay, and exceptional circumstances, including the COVID-19 pandemic and the trial going longer than expected.

The court found that the net delay, after accounting for defence delay and exceptional circumstances, fell below the presumptive ceiling.

The applicant failed to demonstrate sustained efforts to expedite proceedings or that the case took markedly longer than it reasonably should have.

The application was dismissed.

The accused was charged with having care or control of a motor vehicle while her blood-alcohol concentration exceeded 80 mgs of alcohol in 100 mls of blood contrary to s.253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The accused advanced multiple Charter arguments challenging the lawfulness of the police investigation, including violations of ss.8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Charter.

The court found a technical breach of ss.8/9 based on a three-minute unexplained delay in administering the approved screening device demand, but rejected all other Charter arguments.

The court concluded that the breach was minor and did not warrant exclusion of the breath sample evidence under s.24(2) of the Charter.

The Crown proved the offence beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused was found guilty.