R. v. Adam, 2017 ONCA 988

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 2017-12-15 Docket: C59153

Judges: Hoy A.C.J.O., Doherty and Feldman JJ.A.

Between

Her Majesty the Queen Respondent

and

Ahmed Adam Appellant

Counsel

Michael Dineen, for the appellant

Rachel Young, for the respondent

Heard and Released

Heard and released orally: December 8, 2017

On appeal from: the conviction entered by Justice R. Smith of the Superior Court of Justice, dated October 30, 2013 and the sentence imposed on May 23, 2014.

Reasons for Decision

[1]

Introduction

This fraud case, involving multiple accused, was entirely completed in the trial court almost three years before the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 631. The appellant appeals conviction. He argues that the application judge erred in dismissing his s. 11(b) pre-trial Charter application. In particular, he argues that the application judge erred in his Morin analysis. He concedes that if the application judge did not err in his Morin analysis, the delay is reasonable under Jordan.

[2]

Analysis

We agree with the application judge that, balancing the factors required to be taken into account in a Morin analysis, the delay is reasonable.

3The delay in this case arose from the Crown's decision to join the appellant's co-accused. Even on the appellant's argument, the delay resulting from joining the co-accused exceeded the Morin guidelines by only one month.

4This is a moderately complex fraud case. As the application judge noted, it involved many documents and apparently intercepted communications. Even if the co-accused had not been joined, given the nature of the fraud, the evidence against the co-accused was necessary and the trial would have been lengthy.

5The appellant was on bail on liberal terms. There was no prejudice to the appellant's liberty interest. Nor was there prejudice to the appellant's ability to make full answer and defence in this largely document-driven matter. We give little weight to prejudice to the security interests of the appellant's person, in the sense of being free from the stress and cloud of suspicion that accompanies a criminal charge. As indicated, the delay in excess of the Morin guidelines is, at best, one month and there was no evidence from the appellant as to the effect of the delay on him.

6Finally, this was a serious fraud. There was a societal interest in bringing this case to trial.

[7]

Disposition

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.