3 total
The court dismissed a section 11(b) Charter application, finding the institutional delay fell within acceptable guidelines.
The applicant sought a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms on the grounds that her trial for impaired driving would not be heard within a reasonable time.
The trial was scheduled approximately 11 months and 3 weeks after the information was sworn.
The court applied the four-pronged test from R. v. Morin and found that while there was significant institutional delay (9 months and 24 days), the delay fell within the 8-10 month guideline established for criminal trials.
The court balanced the prejudice to the accused against the serious societal interest in trying impaired driving cases and dismissed the motion.
The court imposed a 12-month custodial sentence for sexual assault, emphasizing denunciation, deterrence, and the offender's recidivism.
The defendant pleaded guilty to sexual assault of a 17-year-old complainant.
The assault occurred when the defendant, aged 62, followed the complainant to her vehicle after her work shift, removed her car keys, and kissed her against her will while touching her lower back.
The defendant had a significant criminal history including prior sexual assault convictions and violence against women.
The court imposed a custodial sentence of 12 months imprisonment with credit for pre-trial house arrest, resulting in 7 months and 24 days of incarceration, followed by 3 years probation with strict conditions including DNA sampling, firearms ban, and sex offender registry compliance.
The court dismissed the defendant's application to strike his guilty plea, finding it was voluntary, unequivocal, and informed.
The defendant sought to strike his guilty plea to sexual assault, arguing that the plea was not voluntary and that he did not fully understand the consequences.
The defendant claimed language barriers and pressure from counsel influenced his decision to plead guilty on the eve of trial.
The court found that the plea was voluntary, unequivocal, and informed.
The defendant had received comprehensive written instructions, was assisted by a Russian interpreter, and had undergone a thorough plea comprehension inquiry.
The court rejected the application to strike the guilty plea.
