ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N :
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
MINWOO KIM
Before Justice D. Rose Heard on June 5, 2026
Amended Trial Management Ruling
Released on June 19, 2026
Christina Tang..................................................................................... counsel for the Crown
Victor O’Brien.......................................................... counsel for the accused Minwoo Kim
Rose J.:
1When the parties appeared before me on June 5 I asked the Crown and Defence what pre-trial motions or applications were anticipated and the length of the trial. I received that list in oral submissions. All agree that there is an outstanding ruling from Justice L. O’Brien regarding an 11(b) Motion which is now on reserve. Mr. O’Brien advises that there is a recusal application before Justice L. O’Brien which has yet to be argued. I am told by the trial coordinator that Justice O’Brien is now in a position to give his 11(b) ruling, and has dates next week, ie June 23 – 26 to deliver it. . Parties must contact the trial coordinator to arrange time to receive that ruling. If Mr. O’Brien is not available he can be represented by an agent. A video appearance to receive that ruling is acceptable.
2If Justice O’Brien stays the charges then this Ruling is obviously moot.
3Mr. O’Brien can bring his recusal application before Justice L. O’Brien independent of this ruling in the event that O’Brien J. does not stay the case because of an 11(b) violation. It should be heard promptly. In the event Justice O’Brien recuses himself rendering the 11(b) ruling void, the parties shall appear before me promptly to address how that effects this ruling, including hearing the 11(b) ruling anew before me. It would be preferable to hear the recusal application first but it is not strictly necessary. Adjudication of an application for recusal should be advanced at once, as a general rule, but it is not a fixed rule, see R. v. Nero 2016 ONCA 160 at par. 33. Justice O’Brien enjoys the strong presumption of judicial impartiality until such time as it is displaced. He can render his 11(b) ruling and proceed to hear the recusal application if it is still required by the Defence. The unusual delay in this case requires this procedure.
4On June 17, 2026 Regional Senior Justice Vincent Clifford appointed me Case Management Judge for this case under the authority of s. 551 of the Code. He did that on his own motion. The case now proceeds on that basis. The parties are encouraged to review Part XVIII.1 of the Code to familiarize themselves with the Case Management powers outlined in that section.
5This case is extremely dated. Far too dated in my finding. The Information was sworn to on March 15, 2023 . It is now 39 months old. In most cases the parties are able to move forward in a Jordan compliant time frame with little to no judicial input. This is not one of those cases. For that reason a firmer approach will now be taken to moving this case forward.
Crown Motions
6The Crown has:
i) A Seaboyer Application which requires adjudication at:
a. Stage 1;
b. and if successful Stage 2. I am told the Crown has perfected this motion;
ii) Application for remote testimony for at least 1 witness.
Defence Motions
7The Defence has a more lengthy menu of Applications:
i) There are adjournment applications outstanding according to the Defence. Mr. O’Brien argues that he is owed rulings for those. Under the circumstances they are moot going forward and no time will be allotted. Any future adjournment applications must be brought before me.
ii) A Stay of Proceedings motion under ss 7 and 11(d) of the Charter. I am told the Crown is seeking summary dismissal of this motion;
iii) Applications under Part VIII of the Code for leave to use material in the hands of the Defence at trial and also for third party disclosure;
a) Stage 1;
b) Stage 2 if ordered;
iv) Application under s. 276:
a) Stage 1;
b) Stage 2 if ordered;
v) A Garofoli Section 8 Application, which will require:
a) Leave to Cross-Examine the affiant;
b) Potentially evidence from an affiant and then argument;
vi) Application under s. 10(b) of the Charter for utterances which the Crown will not be leading. The Crown agrees to call this evidence during the trial as a rolled up application;
vii) Application for Disclosure under R. v. Stinchcombe 1991 CanLII 45 (SCC), [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326;
viii) An Application for production of third party records regarding police policy directives per R. v. O’Connor (1995) 1995 CanLII 51 (SCC), 44 C.R. (4th) 1 (SCC);
ix) An Application for Mr. Kim and Mr. O’Brien to appear virtually throughout the proceeding;
x) In the event that the outstanding 11(b) Application is rejected by Justice O’Brien and he does not stay the charge there will be a second 11(b) Application.
8In Court Mr. O’Brien argued that these motions should not be scheduled at this time. I disagree. This case is far too dated to pause it.
9Both Crown and Defence agree that 5 days is appropriate for the trial on its merits. There are, I am told, 0 – 4 Defence witnesses.
10Over and above my earlier comments, and given the lengthy and diverse menu of Defence applications this case requires a schedule for the perfection of material and the hearing of the pre-trial motions because of that complexity. It is unclear whether the initial judicial pre-trial process allotted time for the large number of applications.
11The case must now proceed to a hearing of the pre-trial motions under s. 551.3(1) (g), and then potentially a trial on the merits. Perfection of all Motions noted above is therefore necessary to advance the case.
12Having reviewed the May 26 2026 Notice of Application by Defence referred to in 7(ii), it must be perfected no later than the end of the day July 15, 2026. The Crown has until July 22, 2026 to respond if it wishes. The summary dismissal motion can be scheduled for 30 minutes after that. If motion 7(ii) survives summary dismissal it will be added to the balance of the scheduled motions list.
13The Crown must perfect 6(ii) no later than August 4, 2026 at 4:30pm. If it wishes to file anything further on 6(i) it can do so no later than August 4, 2026 at 4:30pm. The Defence Response to the 6(i) and (ii) must be received by the trial coordinator no later than 4:30 pm on August 18, 2026.
14The Defence will perfect 7 (iii), (iv), (v), (vi), (vii), (viii), and (ix) no later than the end of the day August 4, 2026, ie 4:30pm. The Crown must file its responding material with the trial coordinator no later than the end of day, ie 4:30pm on August 18, 2026.
15The Defence motion 7(x) will not be addressed further until it is perfected. If it is perfected argument time will be scheduled.
16Summary dismissal of 7 (ii) will be scheduled first. Short facta are required for all applications so that Court time can be made more efficient. Counsel must now provide the Kingston trial coordinator with time for argument of that summary dismissal (30 minutes) after July 22, 2026.
17No further motions or applications will be received without first obtaining leave of the Court.
18The Crown must review its disclosure to ensure that there is no outstanding disclosure at this time. If Mr. O’Brien believes that there is outstanding disclosure he must reduce his concerns in writing to the Crown within 7 days. He must itemize what he believes is outstanding if any.
19Crown and Defence must now provide the Kingston trial coordinator with their available dates for hearing the balance of the Pre-trial applications and trial after August 18, 2026 going forward 6 months. The Court has ample time available to hear this case, and all counsel must be ready to proceed. Parties should be prepared to address the order of Motions from paragraphs 6 and 7 at the next appearance.
20I would not leave this ruling without commenting that all parties to this case must work proactively to move it forward promptly. The Supreme Court of Canada reminded justice system participants of this only three weeks ago. In R. v. Jacques-Taylor 2026 SCC 20 at paras 2 – 3 the majority began their ruling with words which must be repeated:
- In regard to the first issue, it must be repeated that the duty outlined in Jordan applies to each and every actor in the criminal justice system, be it the Defence, the Crown, or the judge. While the Crown does have a unique role to play in bringing the accused to trial promptly, this duty cannot be borne by it alone. All must be proactive in ensuring that proceedings move forward efficiently and quickly. This is not lofty idealism; it is a constitutional imperative, for the accused, for the victims, and for society at large.
3 The Court has reiterated, time and again, that the criminal justice system must employ all means at its disposal to bring accused persons to trial within a reasonable time. For the courts, this means harnessing their broad case management powers so that the parties collaborate and conduct the case as efficiently as possible. For the Defence and the Crown, this means cooperating in good faith at every stage of the proceedings. Prompt disclosure must be made without hesitation. Reasonable admissions on uncontested or largely peripheral issues should be the norm. Evidence ought to be streamlined to the extent that is reasonable to do so. The parties should also identify and anticipate potential hurdles. Pre-trial motions should be resolved swiftly and the issues at trial closely circumscribed. In short, everyone has their part to play, and judges must not fail to properly consider the duty of all parties to ensure that the case proceeds quickly to trial.
21The parties may choose to abandon any of the aforementioned Motions or Applications by simply not perfecting them on time.
Signed: Justice D. Rose