Court File and Parties

DATE: July 18, 2023 Case No.: 4660 999 00 1217700X-00

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

HIS MAJESTY THE KING v. MEDHAT IBRAHIM MOHAMED

CHARTER MOTION PROCEEDINGS

REMOTELY BEFORE HIS WORSHIP JUSTICE OF THE PEACE J. ZIEGLER on July 18, 2023, for a GUELPH, Ontario proceeding

APPEARANCES: N. Lund Municipal Prosecutor J. Kaloty Agent for the Defendant

TUESDAY, JULY 18, 2023

MR. LUND: Good afternoon, Your Worship. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. LUND: It'd be my intention to call line 36 Medhat Ibrahim Mohamed first as there is an 11(b) application attached to that matter. And then just for a bit of housekeeping....

...OTHER UNRELATED MATTERS ADDRESSED BRIEFLY

MR. LUND: So once, again, if we can begin with line 36 for Mr. Mohamed. And I believe my friend is on this matter. CLERK OF THE COURT: A request for trial with agent indicated and trial notice was issued for today's date. THE COURT: Okay. What's your name, sir? MR. KALOTY: Good afternoon, Your Worship. Kaloty, K-A-L-O-T-Y, initial J., licensed paralegal for Mohamed Ibrahim. THE COURT: Thank you. And you're bringing a motion, are you. MR. KALOTY: Yes, Your Worship. Respectfully, the application was properly served on the court, Attorney General of Ontario and Canada and the prosecutor. There should be an affidavit of that -- of service should be attached to the file, Your Worship. If Your Worship is content with the service I can continue. THE COURT: Do you have any comment on the service, Mr. Lund? MR. LUND: No, Your Worship. To the best of my knowledge, it has been served properly, and I can certainly indicate that my office received it well outside of the requisite time frames from the Ontario Courts of Justice Act. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. KALOTY: Thank you. With your permission, then, Your Worship. This is a Part I certificate in front of you. The date of offence -- I'm going to try to make it as short as I could to the best of my ability, Your Worship. The date of offence on this matter is March the 13th, 2021. And the matter was investigated at the scene, defendant was issued a provincial offence notice. So therefore, there were no ongoing investigations or inherent delay in this particular matter. Then the defendant filed a Notice of Intention on 26th of March 2021, within 15 days as required. And it must be noted, Your Worship, once the NIA is filed in Part I matter the defendant has absolutely no say until the setting of trial date. THE COURT: Thank you. I see a stamp filed March 26th, 2021. Go ahead. MR. KALOTY: Okay. And as I indicated, Your Worship, after filing the NIA the defendant waited and waited and waited. And finally, a trial date was set on this matter, or rather issued on 21st of February 2023. And the first trial date was set for today's date, 18th of July 2023. THE COURT: Yes. MR. KALOTY: But in the time of -- from the date of offence to the first trial date, which is today, is approximately 28 months and 5 days. THE COURT: Yes. MR. KALOTY: I have -- Your Worship, I e-mailed two cases to the court office. I don't know if they reached you or not. One of them is Farokhshadfar and one is Jordan. And they were also sent to the prosecution. THE COURT: Oh, I don't want them shared on screen. What paragraphs are you going to refer to in those cases? MR. KALOTY: Your Worship, once I get to there, if I may make submissions or ask you things, what I -- the issues -- the issues that I want you to consider are two issues. One, before we get to the delay part, I'm going to draw your attention towards setting a trial date. Section 5(5) of the Provincial Offences Act directed the court clerk once received Notice of Intention, they are to set -- set out a Notice of Trial as soon as practicable. The case in point -- or on point is R. v. Farokhshafar. It's spelled as F-A-R-O-K-H S-H-D- [sic] F-A-R. It's Honourable Justice Libman, April 2001 from Toronto. It clearly indicates that there's a section in the Provincial Offences Act is directed to the court clerk that the notice -- once upon receiving a Notice of Intention, a Notice of Trial should be issued as soon as practicable.

In this particular matter, the NIA was filed on March 26th, '21, Notice of Trial was issued February 21st, 2023. And that is one year and eleven months, almost two years. And I'm going to amend this -- the numbers here because it has come to my understanding that the trials in your jurisdiction were allowed as of July 2021. So if Your Worship will take that into consideration, then I would like to deduct three months on the fifth. So essentially, then, in order to set a trial date after receiving NIA, it took approximately one year and eight months. The consideration I'm seeking from you is, is that a reasonable time that a trial under the definition of reasonable?

You may hear submissions or issue in terms of COVID. I can indicate, Your Worship, this matter took place -- or the offence date is March 13th, 2021. The courts were closed because of the COVID from March of -- March 2020 till September of 2020. So this incident happens way after the courts were closed and then they were opened in September. And I do acknowledge that the trials were then, the Regional Senior Justice of the Peace approved setting trial dates as of July 2021.

I can also indicate, Your Worship, that there were no adjournment from the defence in this matter. There was no continuous delay to this matter from the defence side. As you're well aware, in Part I matters, once filing a Notice of Intention, defendant absolutely has no say in terms of setting trial dates. The prosecution may have such provisions but I don't see any evidence in this particular matter in terms of the prosecution made any efforts to expedite the trial or any of it in terms of bringing the matter forward.

Second issue, in terms of the delay, Your Worship. In my application, I have noted from the offence date to the first trial date the time elapsed, 28 months and 5 days. Again, although this matter happened after the closure of defendant's situation, I will respectfully submit and keeping -- being respectful to everything, I intend, again, the senior -- Regional Senior Justice of the Peace allowed or approved setting trial dates as of July 21, 2021. So with that calculation, the time, even if you calculate from July of 2021, to the first trial date of today, which is 18th of July 2023, it is essentially 25 months -- 24 months and 25 days for a trial date.

Now, Your Worship, with all due respect, I'm sure you're familiar with Farokhshafar because I think I explained it to you clearly in detail that it should be given a reasonable time after receiving the Notice of Intention.

In terms of Jordan, I think that is the issue with -- in the case before you. I'm going to just supply those few paragraphs. I'm sure Your Worship is familiar with Jordan anyway. Page number four, line.... THE COURT: Are there any other paragraphs from another case you're going to refer to? MR. KALOTY: No, Your Worship. THE COURT: Good. Thank you. MR. KALOTY: Thank you, Your Worship. And as you mentioned correctly that we don't need to go through 94 pages of Jordan as a lot of us are familiar with it. The gradual -- it's not a complicated matter. It's a straightforward NIA Part I matter that -- I'm respectfully submitting to you, Your Worship, that Jordan has set a presumptive ceiling in terms of delay, which is 18 months for provincial court matters.

Now, in this matter, in this particular case, the delay, obviously, in terms of the closure and then the matter actually, the time we have already deducted, it's approximately 25 months from the date the trial was scheduled in your jurisdiction. Just by looking at page 50, I think you should have it on -- sorry, page 24, paragraph 50, towards the end. THE COURT: Yes. MR. KALOTY: Does Your Worship have it? THE COURT: I have it. MR. KALOTY: Okay. It says:

A presumptive ceiling is required in order to give meaningful direction to the state on its constitutional obligations and to those who play an important role in ensuring that the trial concludes within a reasonable time: court administration, the police, Crown prosecutors, accused persons and their counsel, and judges.

So it says this. Very inclusive as it refers to all previous 11(b) cases in terms of Askov and Morin and every other case. Not to mention, it is obviously binding on the part of this Court. And I also want to bring to your attention page 28, paragraph 70, 7-0. It says:

It is not enough for the Crown, once the ceiling is breached, to point to a past difficulty. It must also show that it took reasonable available steps to avoid and address the problem before the delay exceeded the ceiling. This might include prompt resort to case management process -- case management processes to seek the assistance of the court, or seeking assistance from the defence to streamline evidence or issues for [the] trial or to coordinate pre-trial applications, or resorting to any other appropriate procedural means.

And it is in my respectful submission, Your Worship, that in this particular matter this -- the delay of 25 months is prima facie on its face unreasonable. Defendant has no contribution in this delay. Prosecution may have the opportunity which there is no evidence of in terms of prosecution bringing this matter forward or initiating any of their process which could have expedited the process. It clearly shows the systemic delay of 25 months. And it's not a complicated matter. There were no -- there were no other hearings in terms of -- certainly there was no pre-trial in this matter. I don't believe there was any permitted in this respect, or in this court at least.

My respectful submission, Your Worship, understanding two issues in this, that the trial date itself was not set reasonably. It took one year and eight months and the matter has come to trial, the first trial date 25 months from the date the trial was being set in this respect. And it potentially, it's speed, the presumptive ceiling as cited in Jordan, I believe in -- in this particular matter that it has reached the ceiling already, so there's no need to delay any further. But I think that with your experience, Your Worship, you can always take judicial notice it's obvious on its face in terms of delay in waiting for a trial for one -- one year -- more than one and a half years, and essentially causing difficulties in terms of obtaining or changing their employment and insurance, and so on.

Also, I think it's just as a reminder, Your Worship, we should all remember to be reminded that ordinary people, defendants, don't make notice of these demands, and it is also questionable how somebody defend themselves after 28 months of time has elapsed.

The situation with the COVID is obviously it was trouble and it is highly understandable. But, again, in this matter, all those things were considered. The matter actually the Crown did happen after the closure and also by then the courts were open. And it's my respectful submission that in this particular matter, the defendant's Charter rights were infringed and I'm respectfully asking for a stay of proceedings on this matter. Those are my respectful submissions, subject to any questions from Your Worship. Thank you, sir. THE COURT: Thank you. So Mr. Lund? MR. LUND: Yes, Your Worship. The offence date of March 13th, 2021, according to the Reopening Ontario Acts, Regulation 363/20, at that time Guelph was in Stage 2, Red. The same -- under the same legislation, Regulation 263/20 [sic], lists that, "A city in Stage Red has a maximum indoor gathering size of five people."

So the submission that my friend seems to be making that at this time COVID-19 wasn't really a consideration and, you know, it doesn't really play a factor here, my submission holds no weight. And, in fact, once again, according to the same regulation, starting April 3rd, all the way until the 29th of June 2021, we were in full lockdown in Guelph. There was no gatherings of individuals allowed whatsoever. That also had an impact on this court. My office originally received a Notice of Trial on the February 24th date. Mr. Kaloty reached out to my office on March 1st, making a request for disclosure.

MR. LUND: So on February 24th of 2023, my office received the Notice of Trial for this particular matter. On March 1st of 2023, we received the disclosure request from my friend's office, and on March 2nd of 2023, we received the application before the Court today. Disclosure was provided on March.... THE COURT: So have you got this written down? MR. LUND: The timeline that I'm addressing right now, Your Worship, is just the beginning of my reply factum. MR. LUND: The reason that I was bringing your attention to that, Your Worship, is that as soon as my office received a disclosure request, it was less than five -- it was five days later in which that disclosure request was satisfied. So this isn't a situation where my office has sat on their -- on their hands and done nothing. We've tried to move this matter as forward as expeditiously as possible. But when we jump back to the original offence date of March 13th of 2021, at that time we had not received judicial approval to start scheduling trials. In fact, the last order that had been made by the Regional Senior Justice of the Peace had indicated that any potential trials up to the January 22nd, 2021, date were to be adjourned sine die pending approval from the Regional Senior Justice of the Peace to resume trials.

So this matter falls quite squarely within the timeline contemplated by the global pandemic. I've referenced two pieces of case law and attached the relevant paragraphs to my reply factum.

On the second page, paragraph 13 of my reply factum, I've referenced R. v. Simmons, which is a Ontario Superior Court 2020 decision. I've referenced three paragraphs there. And to paraphrase, Your Worship, the decision from Simmons essentially states that in the paragraph that I've alluded to, not only is the pandemic a discrete event, as contemplated by Jordan, which would matter for calculating the net delay of this matter, but the delay for these matters doesn't end the second we can begin scheduling trials again. So when this Court received – ran its first trial on July 14th, or at least had the first matter scheduled for trial on July 14th of 2021, it's my respectful submission that's not when the clock stops. And that's what Simmons in the paragraphs that I had mentioned discusses. THE COURT: Which -- paragraph 70, 72, is that what you're talking about? MR. LUND: Correct, Your Worship. And if Your Worship wishes for a moment to review those paragraphs, I'll hold any further comment. THE COURT: I want you to point out the important points to me. MR. LUND: Certainly, Your Worship. The -- in particular, I find paragraph 71 makes this issue relatively easy to understand. And in the second line, the justice goes to say:

Take, for example, when a judge falls ill. As a result, the trial must be adjourned to a new date. This is a recognized discrete event. The period of delay caused by this discrete exceptional does not end the moment the judge recovers from their illness and is again capable of hearing cases.

So this is not a new concept that I'm asking Your Worship to consider. This is old pieces of law that we're discussing where no individual case is to be considered as an island.

During the time that this charge was waiting to have a court date assigned to it, the court, the prosecutions' office, and as well as the managers of this building were busy installing physical barriers that are still erected today, was busy making sure we had the ability to conduct virtual hearings with the cameras and the microphones that the -- it was the platform of Zoom would, in fact, cooperate with the recording platform of Liberty to make sure that the record is preserved, that these were secure methods in which people could attend. And then figuring out, now that we have these in place, how exactly do we actually run them.

I believe it would be an unreasonable burden to suggest that anybody involved in this process could have expedited the management of the COVID-19 global crisis, and that when we consider the larger concept that these courts were closed -- and once again, these are -- these dates are outlined in the factual -- the first 10 paragraphs of the reply factum. From the 16th of March, 2020, until, in this jurisdiction, the 14th of July 2021, almost a year and a half that this court was closed, it should not come as a surprise to anyone that that has had a lasting effect on scheduling matters.

If we were to pull a docket from before the court closed because of the pandemic, I all but guarantee there would not be 100 lines on that docket as there is today. My office has taken every reasonable step in conjunction with this court by overloading dockets, by having blitz days where relatively low public interest matters have been withdrawn. By getting everything in place to move a system that has been physical since its inception to a digital format was a Herculean task.

It is my submission to say that -- and it's not supported by the case law either, that while as soon as trials could commence on the 14th of July of 2021, therefore, that's where this clocks stops for 11(b), is nothing short of narcissistic. Everybody wanted their matter to be heard right away but that wasn't the reality we faced.

My friend at -- the case law that my friend provided talks about when there is systemic delay caused either by an error or an inefficient system, then there needs to be a remedy. This is clearly not an issue with systemic delay, Your Worship. This was an issue where we were facing a global health crisis on the scale that we've never seen before, where people weren't allowed to have indoor gatherings at all with each other during the time frame in which my friend is now submitting shouldn't count towards the calculation of delay, and where, once again, we're taking the system that has always been physical, has always demanded people come to it and it be in a building, to move it online.

So as Simmons goes on to enumerate, the delay does not stop the second that we can start scheduling trials. It's my submission that when we consider what delay contribute to COVID-19 and towards the net delay, that it would be appropriate to consider the entirety of the time this matter has been pending a trial as part of the net delay and that we are now at a net delay of zero days.

I've also attached a second case law, Lautherpacht, L-A-U-T-E-R-P-A-C-H-T, 2023 which is from the Ontario Court of Justice. THE COURT: And where are you referring to that? MR. LUND: And that's on the same page, Your Worship, just below the -- on the -- it begins on the second page just below where I've referenced the relevant paragraphs I have from Simmons. And I've included this simply because it goes on to expand upon a bit more and agree on the decision in Simmons, and it's from 2023. It's from this year. THE COURT: Yes. MR. LUND: And in particular at paragraph 109 it says:

While the pandemic cannot be used to justify delay indefinitely particularly as the world opens up and the virus’ effects are mitigated, depending on the circumstances of the case, it may be necessary to deduct significant portions of time that are [attributed] to the pandemic.

And once, again, Your Worship, so I submit that that significant period of time would include the entirety of the delay before the Court. Just because we could start setting matters for trial doesn't mean everyone gets their matter set for trial immediately. As Your Worship has heard today, other matters that we were adjourning have been adjourned until mid to late October because we're already running out of court time for this year for the sheer volume of matters that we're having. There simply is nothing more that this court could do to expedite this process.

So in short, Your Worship, this delay is not systemic delay. This is not delay that's been caused by a culture of compliant or of complacency as contemplated by Jordan. This was caused by an event that the world has never seen before, that we were all learning from and resulted in unprecedented change in our beloved court.

I further submit that when we look at 24(2) which is the section that allows for brevities of a Charter breach, it contemplates when there has been prejudiced suffered by a defendant. It's my submission that there is little to no prejudice other than the inferred prejudice of time given that demerit points last for two years from the date of the offence. This individual faces only a monetary fine, if they are to be convicted of anything. There is no Section 7 concerns for their life, liberty. They've had the same prejudice that my witnesses have had with the erosion of time. Any prejudice is minimal.

I agree with my friend that this is not a complicated matter and given that it's a very straightforward matter, there is less concern about the fuzziness of time affecting someone's decision.

Jordan was part of a multi-count information involving, I believe, four co-accused each facing, I believe, six individual counts for possession in trafficking charges. And in that case, surely, I absolutely agree that individual details become very important when you're corroborating between multiple witnesses, alibis, chain of events. This is a straightforward matter. Either Mr. Mohamed was speeding or he wasn't, and that detail doesn't fade over time. That would be a salient point that time simply could not erode.

So in its totality, Your Worship, I submit that the net delay should be calculated at zero days. My office has shown that it has taken steps to expedite this process and that it would fall to the -- Mr. Mohamed to show that he took meaningful steps to expedite this process, which clearly has not happened or at least there's no evidence of that happening. As such, my submission that the application should fail, and I would be in a position to proceed should Your Worship agree. Subject to any questions you may have, those are my submissions. THE COURT: How many court dates have you lost because of the shortages of justice of the peace? MR. LUND: It's hard to enumerate. The stat that I usually find troubling is we're averaging about three court dates a month. And pre-pandemic we had two days for Part I's and fewer court closures. THE COURT: Prior to the pandemic you had what? MR. LUND: I believe there were two Part I dates a week and there were fewer court closures. And I say so honestly knowing that that isn't a stat that helps my submissions. THE COURT: And what have you got now? MR. LUND: We have one part day, one a week and this is -- this month in particular, we had two court closures. THE COURT: Meaning two days? MR. LUND: Correct. Two weeks we did not have court this month. THE COURT: For two weeks? MR. LUND: Correct. THE COURT: So you had two Part I days per week before, now you get one Part I day per week but you've lost two weeks in this month? MR. LUND: That is correct, Your Worship. THE COURT: So how does that not affect rolling through the trial dates? MR. LUND: It would absolutely effect going through the trial dates, Your Worship. And we've done our best to offset that by overloading the dockets and having extra blitz dates where we can. The October 16th date that we've been adjourning matters to today, my office reached out to the senior justice of the peace in conjunction with the trial coordinator and jointly proposed that several dates where Crown pretrials had been scheduled be converted into regular court dates, both as an assignment court and trial court. So while we have lost court dates we've also been successful in getting a few of those court dates back to try and mitigate the impact of not running two days a week. It's also my understanding, hence, this is secondhand knowledge as I was not the prosecutor at the time, that court often did not run as late as it did or does now before the pandemic. So I think both the clerks as well as the justices that have been attorning to these jurisdictions as we often run court much later than we used to as well. THE COURT: So then aside from the pandemic delay, would you not classify the shortage of judicial officers as systemic delay? MR. LUND: I would, Your Worship. I think that would be a fair classification as certainly we would be able to handle more matters if we had more justices to be able to hear them. THE COURT: And how long now has that delay of shortage of justices been going on? MR. LUND: I'm sorry, Your Worship. I don't have a readily available answer to that, and I don't want to state on record something that I'm not confident about. It's at the very least I can indicate that this has been the practice for the entirety of the time that I've been prosecuting here, which is about an eight-month period at this time. So I can only assume it's a been longer than that. I very much doubt it started the day I started as well. THE COURT: Thank you. So then the pandemic delay of backlog started being addressed July of 2021. MR. LUND: For the trial matters, correct, Your Worship. We did have other court dates running during that time frame, but trial matters not including ex parte trials. The first trial that was set for this jurisdiction was that July 14th date of 2021. THE COURT: We're in July. So you're saying you've been here eight months. So the end of November or the beginning of December when you came here there was a shortage of justice of the peace, and you don't know how long before that. MR. LUND: Correct. And I might be able to find that information out, Your Worship, but as I said it's when I'm on record I try not to overstate but what I have knowledge of as I'm an officer of the court while I sit in this room. THE COURT: So was it March 26th, 2021, when the defendant asked for the matter to go to trial? I saw that in one of the documents that I'm -- it's not popping up right now. MR. LUND: I believe that the original notice -- or the original certificate of offence would have been stamped with that particular date, Your Worship. THE COURT: Okay. That's where it is. March 26th, 2021, when it was filed. So the pandemic delay would have continued at least until July 14, 2021. And I think that's the four months that the defence conceded. And yes, there's a backlog. But then a new delay which is now not pandemic but systemic started before -- we don't know how much before December of 2022. So the conclusion that I reach is that it's not clear how much the backlog from pandemic delay has lengthened a period of time beyond 18 months, but it is clear that for at least eight months, systemic delay from judicial shortage has contributed to the delay. Now, do any of these cases help me analyze what I should do with that information? MR. LUND: None that I found, Your Worship. Unfortunately, all of them are -- well, at least most of them are coming from the Ontario Court of Justice dealing with criminal matters which actually saw an increase of resources instead of a decreasing of them during the same time period. THE COURT: Yes. MR. LUND: Your Worship, I just received some additional information that might assist with that number. I've been able to find a copy of the court master plan from 2022, and it indicates on the court master plan that starting in August of 2022 is when we no longer had that second Part I day per week. So for all of the July 2022, there was two Part I days per week and then beginning of August of 2022. And then all the following months, that is when we have dropped down to one court date per week. THE COURT: And it was what? July 14th, 2021, when we started rescheduling trial dates? MR. LUND: Correct, Your Worship. And just to be clear, that was the first date in which a trial was scheduled, not that the scheduling began. That was -- there was a matter scheduled for trial in court on July 14th of 2021. THE COURT: So it's actually almost impossible to predict how quickly we'd have caught up on the pandemic backlog from the -- with the resources cut in half since August of 2022. Do you agree with that statement? MR. LUND: Absolutely, Your Worship. Certainly, as best dealing with the matters here in court won't simply deal with the backlog, and certainly a great number of them I imagine will be appealed. That backlog is going to take time to work its way through the system. THE COURT: So remind me again why there was four months knocked off of the original tally. MR. KALOTY: Well, Your Worship -- sorry, is that a question for me, Your Worship? THE COURT: I'm asking the prosecutor, and if he can't answer then I'll ask you. MR. LUND: I believe my friend's position was that if Your Worship was to grant delay for the pandemic that it would be from the March 13th offence date to the July -- my apologies -- or July 13th, 2021 offence date to the July 14th, 2021 date that the -- yeah, July 14th, 2021, first court date where trials were scheduled in this court. THE COURT: So because we started scheduling trials again in July 21st, we knock off the first four months. MR. LUND: I believe that was my friend's submission about... THE COURT: Yeah. MR. LUND: ...how to calculate the impact of the pandemic with this matter. THE COURT: And going from July 21st, 2021 to July 18, 2023 is about 23.75 months. Yes? We're like a week short.

Reasons for Ruling

ZIEGLER, JP (Orally):

In my view, the cutback in resources for judicial officers in the Provincial Offences Court has delayed recouping the backlog from the pandemic. And this cutback, at least in the Guelph area, has started in August -- in or about August of 2022 where instead of having two Part I days per week, we're down to one Part I day. And more recently, in this month, for instance, not only were they down to one Part I week, but they've also lost two weeks wherein nothing was scheduled because of judicial resources.

And the net effect of this is an adding now to the time to recoup from the pandemic is a systemic delay due to the shortage of judicial resources. In taking that into account, we end up with an individual who's 23.75 months before reaching a trial date in face of the Jordan decision, which says it should be 18 months. And yes, there is an effect by the pandemic recovery, but we've got to factor that makes it impossible to mathematically determine how the cutback of resources by 50 percent from the judicial end has contributed to that delay. It still ends up being a considerable amount of time to wait for trial. And even though it may be a simple matter, a simple matter is one of those reasons why it should be that much easier to schedule a trial date rather than because there's only what, the defendant as a witness and the officer as a witness.

And in my view the time delay is greater than 18 months and the reasons for the increase in time has been contributed by the shortage of judicial resources. The end result is there's a considerable delay and in my view that's in breach of the Charter right to a trial within a reasonable time. So I'm accepting the motion and ruling that the delay is unacceptable. MR. LUND: Thank you, Your Worship. THE COURT: So I guess that means I stay the charge. MR. LUND: The typical remedy and the only remedy that I've been aware of so far when there has been found that there has been a breach of somebody's 11(b) Charter rights is for a stay. 24(2) would allow for a different remedy if Your Worship believed a different one to be fit. But it would be relatively unprecedented as far as I'm aware. THE COURT: Okay. So motion granted under Section 11(b) of the Charter. The charge is stayed.

MATTER CONCLUDED

FORM 3

ELECTRONIC CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIPT (SUBSECTION 5(2)) Evidence Act I, Lisa Ruggiero, certify that this document is a true and accurate transcript of the recording of R. v. Medhat Ibrahim Mohamed in the Provincial Offences Court held at 59 Carden Street, Guelph, Ontario, on July 18, 2023, taken from Recording No. C4660_lcr_20230718_090000.dcr which has been certified in Form 1 by T. Staniscia.

August 2, 2023 Lisa Ruggiero

ACT 6593951121 Province of Ontario, Canada