Court File and Parties
Ontario Court of Justice
Date: June 14, 2016
Court File No.: Central East - Newmarket 4911-998-15-04127-00
Between:
Her Majesty the Queen
— and —
Yousef Ramin Barghi
Ruling on Adjournment Application
Before: Justice Joseph F. Kenkel
Heard and Delivered: June 14, 2016
Counsel:
- Ms. Jina Lee, counsel for the Crown
- Mr. Aaron Wine, counsel for the defendant
Decision
KENKEL J.:
[1] The Crown applies without notice to adjourn this trial. The main reason for the adjournment request is the lack of an available court to hear the matter.
[2] Mr. Barghi is charged with Assault, Forcible Confinement, Failing to Comply with a Recognizance, and Mischief all arising from an alleged altercation with his wife. Both parties agree the allegations are serious and that there is a public interest in proceeding with the matter despite the apparent effort by the complainant to recant prior to trial.
[3] The complainant did not attend court yesterday. The trial could not have proceeded in her absence, but even if she had been here there was no court available to hear the matter. She has attended today. There may be a court available this afternoon, but she's unable to stay as she's not made alternate child care arrangements.
[4] The defence did not agree to the adjournment and mentioned that the accused's current bail contains some restrictive conditions that make further delay difficult.
[5] Both parties are aware of why we overbook trials in Newmarket. Despite our best efforts using multiple strategies it remains the case that more than half the matters that are scheduled for trial do not proceed as scheduled. To accommodate this phenomenon we overbook to ensure that our courtrooms are not empty more than half the time. We have multiple judges, so applying the law of large numbers even on this small scale, things tend to work out. The number of cases that proceed and the number that resolve tend towards expected values such that on most days all cases are reached. On some days we are unable to reach certain cases and that's unfortunately the result here. Overall the system aims at optimum efficiency but it necessarily proves inefficient in a few particular cases.
[6] I find that it's necessary to grant the Crown's request for adjournment. After discussing the matter with both counsel I agree that the matter can be narrowed to one day of trial time instead of the two originally scheduled. That change will permit a much faster return date. Further, I've asked the Crown to consider amending certain restrictive portions of the accused's bail on consent. Both counsel agreed to discuss making fair amendments and I'm prepared to adjourn the trial on that basis.
Delivered June 14, 2016
Justice Joseph F. Kenkel