Court File and Parties

Court of Appeal for Ontario Date: 2023-01-06 Docket: C66151

Before: Trotter, Harvison Young and Favreau JJ.A.

Between: His Majesty the King Respondent

And: Shawn Tedder Appellant

Counsel: Shawn Tedder, acting in person Maria Gaspar, for the respondent

Heard: December 20, 2022

On appeal from the conviction entered on October 2, 2018, and the sentence imposed on October 2, 2018, by Justice Jane E. Kelly of the Superior Court of Justice.

Reasons for Decision

[1] The appellant was convicted in 2018 of a number of offences related to the trafficking of marijuana. He had been charged in 2015 following an investigation of an illegal marijuana dispensary that he owned and operated. Following the conviction, he was sentenced to a 60-day intermittent term of imprisonment. He appeals the conviction on the basis that the court erred in dismissing a number of pretrial motions that he brought, which were heard by the same judge on a preliminary application. He also seeks to appeal his sentence. However, at the beginning of the oral hearing, he advised this court that he intended to only make submissions on his argument that the motions judge erred in finding that his s. 11(b) Charter rights had not been breached.

[2] Beginning with the conviction appeal, we see no errors of fact, law or mixed fact and law, on the part of the motions judge that could justify this court’s intervention with her conclusions.

[3] We cannot accept the appellant’s argument that he did not waive his s. 11(b) Charter rights to the extent found by the motions judge. The motions judge carefully reviewed the record, finding that he had expressly waived his s. 11(b) Charter rights. Her findings are entirely consistent with the record that was before her. In particular, the transcript shows that he expressly waived the 8-month period between January and October 2018. She ultimately found that the net delay was 29 months, which fell below the 30-month presumptive ceiling that was set in R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 631. While the appellant clearly disagrees with the motions judge’s s. 11(b) ruling, he has not identified any error of law or palpable and overriding error that could justify the intervention of this court.

[4] Nor has the appellant demonstrated any error on the part of the sentencing judge. The matter proceeded as a joint submission, and we see no basis for interfering with the sentence imposed.

[5] The appeal is dismissed.

“Gary Trotter J.A.”

“A. Harvison Young J.A.”

“L. Favreau J.A.”