A. Neil Singh

The applicant sought a declaration that his Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time under s.11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms had been breached, and applied for a stay of proceedings under s.24(1).

Although the total delay of 539 days (17.7 months) fell below the presumptive Jordan ceiling of 18 months for Ontario Court of Justice proceedings, the court found a below-the-ceiling breach.

The applicant demonstrated meaningful and sustained efforts to expedite the proceedings and established that the case took markedly longer than it reasonably should have.

The delay was primarily attributable to the Crown's failure to provide video statements in a timely manner and the court's inability to offer trial dates earlier than 13 months from the swearing of the information.

The charges were stayed.

This decision clarifies the meaning of "export" under the Cannabis Act in the context of possession for the purpose of exporting cannabis.

The Court held that "export" means sending cannabis or industrial hemp from Canada to another country and does not require proof of commercial value or any additional purpose beyond the physical act of exportation.

The ruling emphasizes that the Act and its regulations permit exportation only for medical, scientific, or industrial hemp purposes, and that the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the possession was intended to cause the cannabis to leave Canada.

This decision addresses the criminal liability of Shawn Collinge on three counts of child luring under the Criminal Code.

The Court considered two key issues: whether it matters if Collinge was unknowingly communicating with a third party rather than the alleged minor, H.O., and whether Collinge had the requisite mens rea regarding H.O.'s age.

The Court held that liability depends on who the accused believed he was communicating with, not the actual recipient, and found that Collinge knew and believed H.O. was 14 years old.

The Court rejected Collinge's claim that he believed H.O. was over 18, finding his evidence not credible.

Collinge was found guilty on all counts.

The Ontario Court of Justice sentenced E.T. to 5½ years imprisonment for sexual assault with a weapon involving his former spouse and their child.

The Court considered aggravating factors including the use of a knife, the involvement of the child, and the breach of trust, alongside mitigating factors such as E.T.'s lack of criminal record, supportive family background, and mental health diagnosis of bipolar disorder.

The Court imposed ancillary orders including a lifetime weapons prohibition, DNA sample provision, a 20-year SOIRA order, and a non-communication order with the victim while in custody.

The decision highlights the balance between denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation in sentencing sexual offences involving intimate partners and children.

This decision addresses multiple alleged Charter breaches related to the arrest and detention of Rajiv Quinless for impaired driving with excess blood alcohol concentration.

The Court found no breaches regarding the reliance on the Approved Screening Device (ASD) results or the adequacy of the information provided about the reasons for arrest.

There was no breach found in the timing of the right to counsel being read.

However, the Court found serious breaches of the right to counsel under s.10(b) of the Charter, including impermissible steering to duty counsel instead of allowing the accused to contact his brother for legal assistance, and a breach of the right to consult with counsel in private due to the accused’s reasonable belief that the consultation was not private.

The evidence (breath readings and utterances) was excluded under s.24(2) to maintain confidence in the administration of justice, resulting in a dismissal of the charge.

Megan Weston was arrested at Toronto Pearson International Airport with over 32 kg of cannabis concealed in her checked luggage, destined for London.

The Crown sought to qualify an RCMP Corporal as an expert witness on Canada as a cannabis source country, the UK as a recipient market, and cannabis pricing/value in the UK and GTA.

The defence opposed.

The court, applying the Mohan criteria, qualified the expert only for cannabis pricing and valuation in the GTA, finding the other areas irrelevant or lacking proper qualification.

The applicant, Sabrina Scott-Wolf, brought a motion for a stay of proceedings under s.11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging unreasonable delay.

The total delay from the swearing of the information to the anticipated end of trial was 19.8 months, exceeding the 18-month presumptive Jordan ceiling.

The court calculated the net delay by subtracting periods of defence-attributable delay, including delays in scheduling a Crown Pretrial, a Judicial Pretrial, and a Trial Scheduling Conference.

The court rejected the Crown's argument that late notice of the s.11(b) application constituted defence delay, finding the May 25, 2024 email sufficient notice.

The net delay was determined to be 14.8 months, falling below the presumptive ceiling.

The court found the applicant failed to demonstrate a sustained effort to expedite proceedings, thus not meeting the criteria for a below-ceiling stay.

While acknowledging the Crown's inexcusable complacency in providing disclosure, the motion for a stay of proceedings was dismissed, and trial dates were confirmed.

In a criminal trial, the young person accused, C.A., was charged with two counts of sexual assault against the complainant, N.W. The incidents were alleged to have occurred in October 2022 and January 2023.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of both young witnesses, noting their memory limitations regarding peripheral details.

The court explicitly rejected defence arguments based on common myths and stereotypes about sexual assault victims, such as the implausibility of assaults in public spaces or the victim's post-assault behaviour and disclosure patterns.

Despite finding both the complainant and the accused credible, the court determined that the accused's denial, coupled with the complainant's evidence, left a reasonable doubt as to what transpired.

Consequently, the accused was acquitted on all charges.