COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) – and –
PAUL MacINNES (Appellant)
BEFORE: CHARRON, GOUDGE AND MacPHERSON JJ.A.
COUNSEL: Allan G. Letourneau
For the appellant
Robin Parker
For the respondent
HEARD: March 7, 2000
On appeal from the Order of Pedlar J. dated April 1, 1999.
E N D O R S E M E N T
[1] Although the argument has focussed on the reasons for various aspects of the delay the fundamental analysis must be whether taking all considerations into account the appellant’s s.11(b) rights were violated.
[2] We agree with the summary conviction appeal judge that the primary consideration here is the absence of reasonable diligence on the part of the appellant in seeking the special disclosure in February 1998. While we do not condone the delays of the police first in disclosing the notes of the arresting officers for June 2, 1997 and second, in complying with the order of Justice Baker, given the lack of diligence of the appellant in seeking this order we cannot view these time frames as running consecutively for the purposes of the s.11(b) analysis.
[3] In light of this and the very limited prejudice shown by the appellant, together with the nature of the charge in this case, we agree that there was no violation of the appellant’s s.11(b) rights.
4The appeal must be dismissed.
“Louise Charron J.A.”
“S.T. Goudge J.A.”
“J.C. MacPherson J.A.”