WARNING
The court hearing this matter directs that the following notice be attached to the file:
A non-publication and non-broadcast order in this proceeding has been issued under subsection 486.4(2.1) and 486.4(2.2) of the Criminal Code.
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
MICHEL ALBERT
Before Justice Leonard Kim
Heard on May 25, 2026
Reasons for Ruling released on May 28, 2026
K. Abbott, K. Whillans counsel for the Crown
W. Stickland......................................................................................................... amicus curiae
The defendant, M. Albert ......................................................................... on his own behalf
Overview
1On March 26, 2026, Mr. Albert formally filed an Application to Adjourn this Dangerous Offender hearing pending the outcome of four appeals he has launched at the Ontario Court of Appeal. Those appeals pertain to the four other trial matters that form part of the evidentiary basis for the Crown’s Dangerous Offender application before me.
2He has also filed a fifth appeal, challenging the conviction for the predicate offence of Forcible Confinement1 entered by Justice A. Buttazzoni on March 30, 2023. This is the Information currently before me in this hearing. That Information was sworn on April 5, 2019.
3On May 25, 2026, I heard oral arguments regarding Mr. Albert’s Application to Adjourn this Dangerous Offender hearing. These are my reasons on the application.
Relevant Recent Events
4On February 18, 2026, Mr. Albert discharged his lawyer, Mr. Denis Michel, less than three and a half months prior to the commencement of this hearing. This is the third lawyer that he has discharged. In anticipation of this, the Crown brought an application to appoint amicus curiae to assist the Court in ensuring Mr. Albert will have a fair hearing and is prepared to represent himself in this complex proceeding.
5On March 2nd, I granted the Crown’s application and appointed Mr. Stickland as amicus counsel.
The Adjournment of the Initial Dangerous Offender Hearing – October 2024
6On October 7, 2024, Mr. Denis Michel, then counsel for Mr. Albert, brought an Application to Adjourn 10 days set aside for this hearing, expected to commence on November 4, 2024. The grounds for that application largely mirror the current application, namely, that the Ontario Court of Appeal has yet to decide the four individual appeals that will form part of the Crown’s evidentiary basis on the Dangerous Offender hearing.
7The trial judge granted Mr. Albert’s adjournment. In doing so, he was of the understanding that a date for the appeals at the Court of Appeal would be set in late October or early November 2024 and likely heard in 2025. Faced with those timelines and the potential impact of those appeals on the Dangerous Offender application, in balancing the competing interests of the Crown to conclude this matter, His Honour reluctantly granted the adjournment. Accordingly, those 10 days set aside for the hearing were vacated.
8This Court, with the assistance of both counsel, then focused their efforts to re-schedule 10 days for the hearing. In April 2025, the current 10 days were re-scheduled expected to commence on May 25, 2026. Instead, that date was spent hearing the arguments on this application. There are four applications before the Court that have been filed by the parties in recent weeks, in addition to the Dangerous Offender hearing itself.
The Status of the Four Appeals at the Ontario Court of Appeal
9Since then, the trial judge retired and on January 22, 2026, Mr. Albert served new Notices of Appeal at the Court of Appeal, adding a new ground of appeal to three of the four existing appeals.
10Last week, the Court of Appeal denied leave for Mr. Albert to add these new grounds of appeal, noting, among other things, “the impediment to scheduling the four grouped appeals for argument is the appellant’s desire to add the New IAC Claim as a ground of appeal in three of them.”2
11The late timing of these new Notices and the reasons therein were not acceptable explanations at the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal acknowledged that Mr. Albert was aware of the impact that adding the new grounds would have on the grouped appeals. The Court also expressed concern that if his new ground of appeal were to be permitted at this late stage, significant further delay would result in the resolution of the grouped appeals.3
12Although it appears that these four appeals will now be added to the solicitor’s appeal stream, the fact of the matter is that they have yet to be scheduled for argument and there is no foreseeable date for a decision.
13As it relates to the fifth appeal pertaining to the conviction at trial in this matter, the Court of Appeal acknowledged that Mr. Albert has not yet been sentenced and acceded to the Crown’s request not to set it down for a hearing. The Court of Appeal also acknowledged that the current matter was not directly before them and remains in the inmate appeal stream.4
The Position of the Parties
14Mr. Albert seeks to adjourn this hearing for a second time for largely the same reasons submitted by his then counsel, in October 2024. Namely, the four appeals for other trials that will form the basis for part of the Crown’s case in this hearing have yet to be decided at the Court of Appeal. Those four appeals, if successful in any way, have the potential to undermine the Crown’s case at the hearing where they seek to have him declared a Dangerous Offender and sentenced indeterminately.
15Furthermore, he asserts, inter alia, that his time and ability to prepare these appeals has been severely prejudiced within the various custodial institutions due to “numerous obstacles, interference, or loss of documents between March 2024 and present day.5”
16He cites numerous examples of institutional procedures and obstructions that have adversely impacted his ability to adequately draft and file his appeals which has had a ripple effect on the delay in the appellate court and his ability to prepare for the current hearing.
17Due to these obstructions, not only has his ability to prepare the appeals been compromised, but his preparation for the current hearing has been prejudiced. He claims to be unprepared to defend himself and seeks to adjourn the hearing to permit him ample opportunity to do so and await a decision from the Court of Appeal to focus his defence in the current hearing.
18The Crown opposes the adjournment and submits that we are over 19 months after the initial adjournment granted in October 2024, and no further ahead in having the appeals set, heard and decided. Since October 2024, when the trial judge granted his adjournment on identical grounds, nothing has moved forward at the Court of Appeal, and we continue to wait. With no actual date for the appeals set, and additional time required for the decision to be released, we will likely delay this hearing for a significant period of time that would exacerbate the total delay of more than 7 years since the date of this incident.
19He reminds the Court that delayed justice for the victim is highly prejudicial to her and the public interest. It is also prejudicial to Mr. Albert who also has an interest in a timely conclusion to this case. The Crown, mindful that the fifth appeal pertains to the conviction for the predicate offence, insists that in the event that Mr. Albert wishes to appeal that conviction, he can do so after this hearing is concluded in one single appeal as opposed to a fragmented process.
Law and Analysis
20The current dates set for this Dangerous Offender hearing were set over a year ago, in April 2025. At the time these dates were set, 10 days were secured by the trial coordinator commencing on May 25, 2026, the date this Adjournment Application was heard.
21Mr. Albert seeks to call several witnesses in his defence, which is his right to do so. Since Mr. Albert is now self-represented, in the numerous case management dates held before me, the parties have estimated a minimum of 15 days is required.
22Due to the timing of this application, we are actively utilizing some of those hearing dates to determine the issue of adjournment, as well as Mr. Albert’s Application to Introduce Fresh Evidence. The Crown has also filed an application pertaining to the admissibility of certain evidence during the hearing.
23Additionally, in recent months and after he discharged his most recent counsel on February 18, 2026, Mr. Albert has filed a Charter Application alleging a breach of his right to a trial within a reasonable time under s. 11(b). Due to the timing of this application, and the voluminous transcripts required, the Crown has yet to perfect their response. A date has yet to be set to hear that Charter Application.
24Obtaining 10 days for any matter in the Ontario Court of Justice requires a significant allocation of judicial resources in an already overburdened family and criminal court system. I am also mindful that Mr. Albert is in custody awaiting completion of this Dangerous Offender hearing.
25Today, more than 7 years later, Mr. Albert has yet to be sentenced on this current Information before me.
26In R. v. Shortreed, 1990 10962 (ON CA), [1990] O.J. No. 145 (C.A.), the trial judge adjourned the Dangerous Offender application pending the appeal against conviction. The Ontario Court of Appeal, in remitting the matter back to the trial judge to deal with the Dangerous Offender application, expressed the view that “…it is desirable, in general, for the court to consider the appeal from conviction and the appeal from sentence together.”6
27Furthermore, in R. v. Teskey, [2003] A.J. No. 55 (C.A.), the Attorney General was withholding consent to institute Dangerous Offender proceedings until the appeal from the predicate offence conviction was heard. The Alberta Court of Appeal demonstrated that they consistently oppose the fragmentation and resulting delay caused in criminal trial proceedings and for policy reasons, require an aggrieved party to bring all matters before the appellate court at the conclusion of the trial.7
28Provincial appeal courts have been reluctant to expand the scope of their intervention in matters that have not yet concluded. The resulting fragmentation of legal proceedings has been recognized to cause additional delay, and this is discouraged. In our system of justice, there is a general expectation that criminal proceedings should not be fragmented. Yet, this is precisely what appears to be happening in this case.
29While Mr. Albert is entitled to appeal the conviction of the predicate offences, it makes little sense to do so at this stage, where he has yet to be sentenced. Clearly, in permitting another adjournment of this sentencing hearing, I would be doing exactly what the appellate courts discourage, namely, permitting the fragmentation of criminal proceedings and ensuring further delay in an already severely delayed serious matter.
30Mr. Albert’s fifth appeal at the Ontario Court of Appeal is the very conviction that opens the door for me to sentence him. To delay this Dangerous Offender hearing once again, with absolutely no evidence of timely progress on those appeals at this late stage, would cause the public to lose confidence in our justice system.
31I have carefully reviewed each of the cases cited by Mr. Albert and considered them in conjunction with his application materials. The cases he relies on are highly distinguishable with the facts of this case and they are of very limited assistance in persuading me to grant another adjournment.
32For example, in R. v. Ryan, 2000 NFCA 29 at paras. 9, 10, a concrete date for that appeal was scheduled to happen only 32 days later. It made sense procedurally to hear that appeal before Mr. Ryan was sentenced. Those facts are in stark contrast to what is before me today.
33In totality, having considered Mr. Albert’s access to disclosure and assistance from this court through the appointment of amicus counsel, I am not persuaded that his ability to access disclosure or prepare his defence in this Dangerous Offender hearing has been negatively impacted in any way.
34I also do not accept that he is not prepared to defend himself in this hearing. As he has repeatedly demonstrated to me in every court appearance since my involvement, he appears to be aware of the specific evidence in this case and legal principles at play. While I appreciate that the disclosure may be voluminous, in my view, he has had ample opportunity to review them and prepare his defence.
35The manner in which Mr. Albert chooses to allot his time between defending himself in this hearing and arguing his multiple appeals, is his own choice. But he has been made well aware of these dates for over a year from when they were set. It is up to him to prioritize his preparation time accordingly in his chosen mode of legal representation.
36Mr. Albert’s right to full answer and defence has been safeguarded to the fullest extent. However, that right must be balanced with society’s interest in seeing matters concluded in a reasonably timely manner. This interest is heightened when it involves offences of violence against vulnerable young victims, such as J.C.
37The Application to Adjourn the Dangerous Offender hearing is dismissed. It shall proceed as soon as possible taking into account the remaining evidentiary applications that relate to Mr. Albert’s Application to Introduce Fresh Evidence and the Crown’s application to have certain evidence at the hearing admitted. His 11(b) Charter Application shall be set at a later date pending the Crown’s response.
Released: May 28, 2026
Justice Leonard Kim
Footnotes
- The trial judge found Mr. Albert guilty of Assault Causing Bodily Harm but conditionally stayed that charge due to the conviction for Forcible Confinement arising out of the same incident.
- R. v. M.A., 2026 ONCA 358, at para. 4.
- Ibid, at paras. 15-23.
- Ibid, at footnote 8.
- Notice of Application for Adjournment filed by Mr. Albert on March 26, 2026.
- R. v. Shortreed, 1990 10962 (ON CA), [1990] O.J. No. 145 (C.A.) at para. 48.
- R. v. Teskey, [2003] A.J. No. 55 (C.A.) at para. 6.