COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

DATE: 20000530

DOCKET: C31599

RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) v. RONALD DAHL
(Appellant)

BEFORE: FINLAYSON, DOHERTY and O’CONNOR JJ.A.

COUNSEL: Michael Anne MacDonald
for the appellant

Christine Tier
for the respondent

HEARD: May 26, 2000

On appeal from the summary conviction appeal judgment of Weekes
J. dated February 1, 1999.

E N D O R S E M E N T

[1] In our view, Mr. Justice Weekes, the summary conviction

appeal judge, was correcting in setting aside the stay of

proceedings. The delay in completing the trial from December

15th to May 5th was attributable to the defence. The case was

not reached on May 5th. The defence was offered the next day to

complete the trial but was not available to do so.

[2] The defence moved for a stay under s. 11(b). In granting

the stay, the trial judge attached significant weight to

concerns that he had about the scheduling of trials and the

availability of Crown Attorneys in that jurisdiction. These

concerns, while perhaps well founded, had nothing to do with the

causes of the delay in this case. We agree with Mr. Justice

Weekes that the trial judge erred in failing to properly consider

or balance those factors that were relevant to the s. 11(b)

issue.

[3] We are satisfied, for the reasons expressed by Mr. Justice

Weekes, that when the relevant factors are fairly balanced, this

is not an appropriate case for a stay under s.11(b). The

application for leave to appeal is dismissed.