ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
KIMBERLY-ANN BEITES
Before Justice G. Jenner
Request Heard on March 2, 2026
Reasons Delivered Orally and in Writing on March 2, 2026
M. Wlodarczyk counsel for the Crown
S. von Achten and D. Rosso legal representatives for the defendant
JENNER J.:
1On November 6, 2025, following her trial, I found Ms. Beites guilty of two counts of uttering threats: 2025 ONCJ 582. She thereafter sought to bring an application pursuant to ss. 11(b) and 24(1) of the Charter to have her charges stayed for unreasonable delay. In reasons delivered December 10, 2025, I explained why I would not entertain that application: 2025 ONCJ 647.
2In brief, I refused to hear Ms. Beites’ proposed application for a stay because it was not brought in a timely or proactive manner. As confirmed in R. v. J.F., 2022 SCC 17, and grounded in the framework set out in R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27, an accused has a duty to raise delay concerns promptly, generally before the trial is completed, so that the Crown and the court may take steps to mitigate delay and ensure the efficient use of judicial resources.
3In this case, the defence was fully aware of the relevant delay during the trial and expressly contemplated a s. 11(b) application, yet elected—despite clear judicial direction and reserved court time—not to proceed, choosing instead to await the outcome of the trial in the hope of an acquittal. Only after findings of guilt were entered did the defence seek to pursue a stay. That tactical decision to hold a delay application in reserve is fundamentally inconsistent with J.F. and Jordan. It deprived the Crown and the court of the opportunity to address delay when it could still be meaningfully mitigated, and risked the unnecessary consumption of trial resources. As there was no suggestion that the application could not have been brought earlier despite diligence, and no new post‑trial development extending the delay, I concluded that Ms. Beites failed to comply with her duty to act proactively, and that it would be contrary to the proper administration of justice to entertain the application. I note the Court of Appeal for Ontario has recently upheld the court’s power to decline to hear an application in such circumstances in R. v. MacLaughlin, 2025 ONCA 686.
4Ms. Beites now asks me to reconsider my decision on the basis of the Court of Appeal’s recent decision in R. v. Toole, 2026 ONCA 99. In Toole, at paras. 41-45, the Court of Appeal reaffirmed that after a finding of guilt is rendered but before sentencing occurs, a trial judge is not functus officio and retains the jurisdiction to decide an application for a stay of proceedings pursuant to ss. 11(b) and 24(1) of the Charter.
5The decision in Toole provides no basis for me to reconsider my decision to decline to hear Ms. Beites’s application. I did not decline to hear the application on the basis that I viewed myself as functus officio. As noted, I declined on the grounds of Ms. Beites’s failure to comply with her duty to act proactively and that hearing the application would be contrary to the proper administration of justice, following J.F. and MacLaughlin.
6Toole does not represent a departure from the principles in those cases. Far from it—the court reinforced, at para. 46, that “[o]nce trial dates are set, any s. 11(b) application an accused person may wish to bring should be brought and decided on a timely basis.” The process followed at the trial level in Toole, while within the court’s jurisdiction, was “contrary to the efficiencies required by Jordan” and “should have been avoided”: see para. 47.
7I will not hear the application. I will hear the parties’ sentencing submissions today, as scheduled.
Released: March 2, 2026
Signed: Justice G. Jenner