Court File and Parties
Court: COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO Date: 2024-04-04 Docket: COA-23-CR-0590
Judges: Simmons, Hourigan and Paciocco JJ.A.
Between: His Majesty the King, Appellant And: Andrew Veritis, Respondent
Counsel: Victoria Rivers, for the appellant Chris Rudnicki and Theresa Donkor, for the respondent
Heard: March 28, 2024
On appeal from: the order of Justice Martha Zivolak, of the Ontario Court of Justice, dated May 8, 2023.
Reasons for Decision
1The trial of this in-custody matter was originally scheduled to be completed outside the Jordan [1] ceiling. Subsequently, through the efforts of the Crown, further trial dates were offered on two occasions that would have brought the case within the Jordan ceiling. However, defence counsel was not able to accommodate those dates. The trial judge found that defence counsel acted reasonably throughout and therefore allocated no portion of the delay between the newly offered trial dates and the original trial dates to the defence. As the trial, as originally scheduled, could not be completed within the 18-month Jordan ceiling, the trial judge stayed the charges under s. 11(b) of the Charter.
2The trial judge's finding of fact that defence counsel acted reasonably throughout was firmly rooted in the facts of this case and is entitled to deference on appeal. We see no error in the trial judge's application of the law. The appeal is therefore dismissed.
"Janet Simmons J.A."
"C.W. Hourigan J.A."
"David M. Paciocco J.A."
1R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 631.