4 total
A 17-day delay in holding a bail hearing due to systemic court resource issues warrants a stay of proceedings.
The accused, Alaelddein Alhajsalem, brought an application for a stay of proceedings due to a 17-day delay in his bail hearing, arguing a violation of sections 7, 9, and 11(e) of the Charter.
The Crown conceded a breach of section 11(e) but argued against a stay.
The court found the delay was caused by systemic issues in the Newmarket Bail Court, not related to the pandemic, and that a judicial admonition or sentence reduction would be inadequate.
Balancing the seriousness of the charges against the persistent systemic problem and the flagrant Charter breach, the court granted a stay of proceedings.
The court granted a stay of proceedings for two accused due to unreasonable delay exceeding the 18-month ceiling.
The applicants, Lakhpreet Brar and Sukhvir Singh, sought a stay of proceedings under section 24(1) of the Charter due to a breach of their section 11(b) right to be tried within a reasonable time.
The court applied the Jordan framework, calculating the total delay for Brar as 22 months and 10 days, and for Singh as 24 months and 8 days, both exceeding the 18-month Provincial Court ceiling.
The court found minimal defence delay (3 days for Brar, 4 days for Singh) and rejected arguments that COVID-19 or the case's complexity constituted exceptional circumstances justifying the delay.
Consequently, the court found a breach of the applicants' Charter rights and ordered a stay of proceedings for both.
The accused was sentenced to 6 years imprisonment and ordered to pay over $5.4 million in restitution and fines for a sophisticated commercial fraud against her employer.
The accused pleaded guilty to one count of fraud over $5,000.
Between May 2014 and June 2015, the accused, a Commodity Manager at a payment systems company, defrauded her employer of $5,467,204.08 through a sophisticated scheme involving fictitious purchases from a shell company.
The accused created a shell company with a name nearly identical to a legitimate vendor, obtained vendor approval through deception, circumvented internal controls including the three-way match system, and personally collected cheques which she deposited into an account she controlled.
Upon discovery, the accused fled to Spain where she was arrested and extradited.
The court imposed a sentence of 6 years imprisonment with credit for pre-trial custody, restitution of $5,476,204.08, a fine of $5,476,204.08 in lieu of forfeiture with 6 years to pay (5 years imprisonment in default), and a DNA order.
The impaired driving charge was dismissed because video evidence contradicted witness testimony regarding the accused's impairment.
The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol contrary to section 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.
The Crown's case relied on evidence from a civilian witness who claimed to have followed the accused's vehicle after observing it speeding, and a police officer who conducted a roadside screening device test that resulted in a fail.
The court found significant credibility issues with the civilian witness, whose observations of the accused's physical impairment were contradicted by in-car video evidence.
The court also found that the evidence of impairment was insufficient to meet the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
While the court identified Charter breaches relating to the delay in administering the roadside demand, it declined to exclude the evidence or stay proceedings.
The charge was dismissed.
