ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
CITATION: R. v. Lapin, 2022 ONCJ 551
DATE: 2022 11 21
COURT FILE No: Brampton 18-4514
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
ANATOLI LAPIN
Before Justice P.T. O’Marra
Heard on November 8, 2022
Oral Reasons for Judgment released on November 15, 2022
Written Reasons for Judgment released on November 21, 2022
Caroline Tarjan........................................................... counsel for the Crown/Respondent
Alita Wolff........................................ counsel for the Defendant/Applicant Anatoli Lapin
P.T. O’Marra, J.:
Introduction:
[1] These are my written Reasons for Judgment in an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a result of an infringement of the Applicant's right to a speedy trial pursuant to s. 11(b) of the Charter.
[2] The Applicant was investigated, arrested, and charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle contrary to section 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level concentration over 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood, contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code on April 14, 2018. The Information was sworn on April 17, 2018. The trial in this matter was set to commence before me in the Ontario Court of Justice on November 15, 2022, and anticipated to conclude on November 16, 2022, which was 1675 days or 55 months from the date of the Information.
The Positions of the Parties:
[3] The Applicant submitted that the total delay is 1661 days or 54 months and 19 days. I have calculated, for the purpose of this application, and as the Crown has conceded, the total delay in this case is 1675 days.
[4] The Applicant and the Crown concede that the exceptional circumstances caused from the pandemic resulted in 210 days that should subtracted.
[5] The Applicant argued that there was no defence delay and no waiver of the Applicant’s section 11(b) rights, except for a period of 27 days from March 10, 2020 to April 6, 2020.
[6] Therefore, the Applicant submits, based on the figure of a total delay of 1661 days that the total net delay in the matter is 1438 days or 47.276 months.
[7] The Crown disagrees with the Applicant’s calculation of the defence caused delay. In fact, the Crown argues that most of the delay in this case is defence delay. The Crown submits that the defence delay in this case is 1041 days or 34 months. Therefore, the net delay is 634 days or 20 months and 26 days. After deducting the exceptional circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic delay of 210 days, the remaining delay is 424 days or approximately 14 months which is below the Jordan ceiling.
The Chronology of the Case:
[8] The history of the proceedings was accurately set out in the Applicant's factum and the Crown's response. I do not propose to recite the pace of the proceedings in its entirety or cite specific transcripts; however, the history is based on all the transcripts, e-mails, affidavits from the Applicant, counsel, Ms. Wolff, and a business professional with the Peel Crown Attorney’s Office and other litigation documents and records. Neither party sought leave to cross-examine any affidavits. At Tab 3 of the Crown’s submission, Ms. Tarjan prepared a very helpful and thorough chart that sets out the timeline and the chronology which I have set out as Appendix A.
The Jordan Analytical Framework:
[9] Now turning to the analytical framework.
[10] In determining whether a person's section 11(b) right has been infringed: First, the court must assess the total delay. This is a straightforward approach that begins with the laying of an Information and ends with the actual or anticipated conclusion of the trial.[^1]
[11] Second, defence delay must be deducted from that total, which is the Net Delay.[^2]
[12] Third, if that delay is beyond the 18-month ceiling for Ontario Court matters, it is presumptively unreasonable.[^3] The Crown bears the onus of justifying that delay.[^4] If, the Crown cannot rebut the presumption a stay follows.[^5] Justification for delay is restricted to "exceptional circumstances."[^6]
[13] Exceptional circumstances lie outside the control of the Crown in that they are: (i) reasonably unforeseen or reasonably unavoidable, and (ii) cannot be reasonably remedied once they arise.[^7]
[14] Exceptional circumstances are recognized as discrete events or case complexity. In the case of the former, the delay attributable thereto is deducted from the total. In the case of the latter, if found, delay beyond the ceiling may be deemed reasonable.[^8]
[15] Subtract delay caused by discrete events from the Net Delay (leaving the "Remaining Delay") for the purpose of determining whether the presumptive ceiling has been reached.[^9]
[16] If the Remaining Delay exceeds the presumptive ceiling, the court must consider whether the case was particularly complex such that the time the case has taken is justified and the delay is reasonable.[^10]
[17] If the Remaining Delay falls below the presumptive ceiling, the onus is on the defence to show that the delay is unreasonable.[^11]
[18] The total delay in this matter is 1675 days or 4 years and 7 months.
[19] This case is not complex. It was scheduled for two days. There are no other Charter applications.
Analysis:
[20] What I consider to be the paramount issue for me to decide the merits of this application is how much defence-caused delay, if any, should be deducted from the total delay?
May 18, 2018 – July 31, 2019 = 439 days
[21] Disclosure was provided to the Applicant on his second court appearance on May 18, 2018. The matter was adjourned to June 22, 2018, for the Crown disclosure to be reviewed and to possibly retain private counsel. However, on June 22, 2018, the Applicant was still “looking for a lawyer” and stated that he “need(ed) some time”. At this appearance the Crown asked that the matter start to move forward. The Applicant failed to bring his disclosure and was requested to bring it with him at his next appearance to assist duty counsel if he did not retain counsel by then.
[22] At 4:16 p.m. on July 6, 2018, the Applicant failed to appear for his next court appearance and a bench warrant was issued for his arrest. According to the Applicant’s affidavit, he attended that day but needed a Belorussian interpreter. Since one was not present, he claimed that he asked duty counsel if he could be excused. He believed that duty counsel would arrange for a Belarusian interpreter to call him at the end of the day and let him know when his next court appearance would be.
[23] Contrary to the submission made by the Applicant’s counsel and the Applicant’s affidavit, the Applicant never requested a Belorussian interpreter on May 18, 2018, or on June 22, 2018. In fact, the transcript from the Applicant’s first appearance on April 27, 2018, belies that the Applicant requested an interpreter. My review of the three transcripts from those court appearances persuade me that the Applicant understood the rudimentary questions asked and he provided cogent answers.
[24] I reject the notion that somehow the state had failed to provide proper interpretation services and are responsible for the Applicant’s failure to appear in court. I am further emboldened by the fact that, according to the Applicant’s affidavit, the bench warrant for his failure to attend court was executed on October 26, 2018, while he was in custody on other matters. The Applicant claimed in his affidavit that he was “shocked” by this revelation. He was given November 16, 2018, as his next appearance on this matter.
[25] However, on November 16, 2018, the Applicant failed to appear in court due to his hospitalization. He was discharged on November 22, 2018. A bench warrant was issued for his arrest. He made efforts to contact the officer in charge. However, nothing further was done.
[26] On June 5, 2019, after the Applicant was directed to attend the courtroom, the bench warrant that was issued on November 16, 2018, was rescinded. On that day, the Applicant had not retained a lawyer. He indicated that he wanted to “think it over”. The Applicant asked for a Russian interpreter and claimed that on every appearance he had asked for an interpreter. When he was asked by the Crown if he needed “two weeks, three weeks”, the Applicant answered, “The more time the better, for sure.” The matter was adjourned to July 3, 2019.
[27] On July 3, 2019, the Applicant attended, and the matter was adjourned to July 31, 2019, for the Applicant to apply for Legal Aid and bring proof on the next appearance.
[28] In my view, the Applicant was “foot dragging” in retaining counsel and completing his Legal Aid application, despite repeated requests from the court and the Crown to move his case along.[^12] The period that the Applicant was bench warranted is also defence delay. I do not find on the record that the Applicant requested an interpreter. Regardless, I find that the Applicant understood what occurred at this court appearances and engaged in appropriate answers when asked questions. He also had the assistance of duty counsel.
[29] As a result, I find that the time between May 18, 2018, and July 31, 2019, as defence delay. (439 days)
August 1, 2019 – August 28, 2019 = 28 days
[30] On August 28, 2019, counsel for the Applicant went on the record and had a designation filed by her agent. There was a claim that a letter was forwarded to the Crown requesting “outstanding disclosure items”. The Crown indicated that they did not receive the letter from counsel. The case was put over to September 18, 2019.
[31] I am not entirely certain what the “outstanding disclosure items” were, other than the recording of the 911 call and certified documents.[^13] The disclosure letter was not provided.
[32] But what does concern me is that the Applicant had been provided with disclosure approximately 15 months earlier. Counsel must have been aware of the length of time the case had been outstanding. It seems that a CPT or a JPT could have been scheduled before August 28, 2019, after counsel had been retained by the Applicant. The defence does not need every piece of disclosure before scheduling a CPT or a JPT.[^14] Outstanding disclosure issues are often resolved during these meetings.
[33] As a result, I characterize the period between August 1, 2019 and August 28, 2019, as defence delay. (28 days)
September 18, 2019 – February 3, 2020 = 139 days
[34] On September 18, 2019, counsel’s agent appeared to advise that counsel was “in the process of scheduling a Crown pre-trial in the matter.” The case was put over to October 16, 2019. The Crown suggested that since the matter was “relatively straightforward…. the Crown pre-trial could be done by the resolution Crown downstairs at any time of the week as opposed to waiting to arrange a Crown pre-trial.” The agent advised the court that counsel was recently retained and “is taking steps to move the matter forward.”
[35] On October 16, 2019, the agent advised the court that the CPT was scheduled for November 15, 2019. The Crown advised the agent that the additional disclosure was available at the disclosure hub that seemed to be a 911 call and certified documents.
[36] What is evident from the materials submitted by the Applicant and the Respondent was that both parties assert missed CPTs. For example, the Crown’s affidavit material reflects that counsel missed a CPT on October 25, 2019, that was booked via the online portal. However, counsel has no knowledge how this date was assigned and was not aware of the missed date until she read about it in the Crown’s responding material. However, counsel’s agent was advised that the Crown did call counsel on October 25, 2019, but there was no answer.[^15]
[37] On November 27, 2019, counsel’s agent asserted that counsel did not receive a call from the Crown on November 15, 2019, for the scheduled CPT. The agent requested that the matter be adjourned to January 8, 2020, to reschedule the CPT.
[38] On January 8, 2020, the agent advised that a second CPT was missed by the Crown. According to the agent, the CPT was scheduled through the online portal. The Crown encouraged counsel to directly contact the assigned Crown, “Ms. Graham”. The case was adjourned to February 3, 2020, for a CPT to be held in the interim.
[39] The Applicant blames this delay on the Crown not attending two CPTs. The Crown argues that counsel failed to participate in the CPT set for October 25, 2019. Furthermore, the Crown submitted that the Applicant was not diligent in conducting a CPT.
[40] I cannot reconcile nor resolve the issue of missed CPTs, nor will I assign blame. However, I agree with the Crown that this period of delay could have been avoided if the agent attended the Resolution Crown’s Office on any of the days that the case was in the case management court. Moreover, an in-person resolution meeting could have been conducted any day of the week between September 18, 2019, and February 3, 2020.
[41] An earlier CPT could have occurred. Counsel chose not to avail herself to the “institutional resources implemented to reduce systemic delay in setting a matter down for trial, particularly in a jurisdiction that has been plagued by delay issues for decades.”[^16]
[42] For those reasons, I find that the period between September 18, 2019, and February 3, 2020, should be deducted due to defence delay. (139 days)
February 4, 2020 – February 2, 2021– 365 days
[43] On February 3, 2020, a CPT was held. On February 4, 2020, counsel emailed the Crown that she was ready to schedule a two-day trial.
[44] On February 5, 2020, an agent attended to advise that the Applicant wished to set a trial date however, now the matter required a JPT as the trial estimate was for three days. The JPT was scheduled for March 10, 2020.
[45] Counsel cancelled the March 10, 2020 JPT due to a scheduling conflict. The matter was adjourned to April 6, 2020, to re-schedule the JPT.
[46] The Applicant was prepared and ready to set a trial date as of February 4, 2020, for a matter that was estimated to take two days. In fact, despite the Crown’s position that a JPT may be unnecessary, the Applicant proceeded to schedule a JPT, according to an email dated February 3, 2020, from Assistant Crown Attorney, Jennifer Graham. The Applicant already had the Trial Time Estimate Form (TTEF) and emailed the Crown that she was prepared to set a trial date and would be providing her available dates to her agent. However, counsel chose to schedule a JPT rather a trial date.
[47] For those reasons, I also find that the period between February 4, 2020, and March 10, 2020, as defence delay. (36 days)
[48] The Applicant concedes that the delay between March 10, 2020, and April 6, 2020, is defence delay. (27 days)
[49] The period between April 6, 2020, and November 2, 2020, is conceded as pandemic delay. (210 days exceptional circumstances)
[50] On November 2, 2020, an agent appeared. She indicated that counsel was “going to be arranging a trial date, she’ll submit the forms to the trial coordinator’s office”. The case was adjourned to January 4, 2021.
[51] On January 4, 2021, an agent appeared. She advised that “we are waiting a trial date on this matter. I understand counsel’s submitted a request.” The case was adjourned to January 25, 2021. However, an email dated January 4, 2021, was sent from counsel indicating that she was just forwarding to the trial coordinator the trial scheduling form that evening.
[52] On January 8, 2021, an email was sent by the Trial Coordinator’s Office to counsel asking her to forward the TTEF. The Applicant had been in possession of the TTEF since February 3, 2020. In fact, as a courtesy, the Crown provided the TTEF on February 2, 2021.
[53] On January 25, 2021, an agent appeared. She indicated that the trial scheduling forms had been sent and that “we’re just waiting on a response from the trial coordinator.” The case was adjourned to February 22, 2021.
[54] I am satisfied that the Applicant and the Crown had forwarded the necessary trial scheduling forms to the Trial Coordinator’s Office and were, therefore, ready to schedule a two-day trial as of February 2, 2021.
[55] In my view, the Applicant was not diligent in forwarding the necessary forms to the Trial Coordinator’s Office after November 2, 2020. I also attribute the delay to the unnecessary step of choosing a JPT for a two-day matter.
[56] Therefore, I am assigning the period between November 2, 2020, and February 2, 2021, as defence delay. (92 days)
February 3, 2021- November 23, 2021= 294 days
[57] On February 22, 2021, an agent appeared. She confirmed that counsel was still waiting on trial dates. The matter was adjourned to April 12, 2021.
[58] On April 12, 2021, counsel appeared. She indicated that “we are trying to get a trial date; the forms have been sent to the trial coordinator.” The matter was adjourned to May 31, 2021.
[59] On May 31, 2021, no one appeared on the matter, however, counsel forwarded to the Virtual Crown an email that indicated that she was unable to attend on the matter that day due to “an emergency on another file”. The matter was adjourned to June 28, 2021.
[60] On June 28, 2021, counsel appeared on the matter to indicate that “we are waiting on trial dates…. all forms have been sent in.” The matter was adjourned to August 23, 2021. Counsel confirmed that she would follow up with the Trial Coordinator.
[61] On August 23, 2021, counsel attended and indicated that “we’re awaiting trial dates. Forms have been sent back in early 2021 and I just keep on checking for trial dates”. She confirmed that she would check again with the Trial Coordinator. The matter was put over to the “earliest date” of October 18, 2021.
[62] On August 23, 2021, counsel forwarded an email to the Trial Coordinator enquiring about trial dates on this matter. Astonishingly, the Trial Coordinator asked counsel to submit the Trial Estimate Form and a Trial Scheduling Form. The Trial Coordinator indicated that she had “searched the subject name in all of our inboxes and cannot locate the forms.”
[63] On October 18, 2021, no one appeared on behalf of the Applicant and the matter was adjourned to November 15, 2021, with a bench warrant with discretion.
[64] On November 11, 2021, counsel emailed the Trial Coordinator that the “Forms have been submitted a while ago. How can we get these trial dates?”
[65] On November 15, 2021, counsel appeared and indicated the following:
We’re awaiting trial dates. I have sent several emails to trial coordinator and even sent an update from as most recent available dates, so if there’s any way to expedite it, I’m happy- I’ll be happy to. I don’t know if my friend has any suggestions.
[66] The following exchange took place between an individual named Mr. Gobin, the Crown, Ms. Wolff and the Court:
MS. SOHAIL: Your Worship, I'm not entirely sure of the procedure. Mr. Gobin's on the line and he can assist my [sic] in getting the correct email addresses, scheduling a trial conference or something of the sort.
MR. GOBIN: So, Your Worship, this issue [indiscernible] has happened before. Counsel's [indiscernible] contacted the Brampton OCJ trial coordinator at the general email and have indicated that forms have been sent in for a while. I think since 2020.
THE COURT: I don't know, Ms. Wolff you indicated you had sent a few emails, was it, to that, that general email [indiscernible.]
MS. WOLFF: It should be the general email, let me just double check, Your Worship, if I can have a moment, please. An indulgence.
THE COURT: Sure.
MS. WOLFF: I have Brampton dot OCJ dot trial coordinator at Ontario dot ca (Brampton.OCJ.TrialCoordinator@ontario.ca). I also copied virtual Crown as well as [sic] the emails [indiscernible.]
MR. GOBIN: Thank you.
[67] After this exchange the Crown suggested that the matter be sent into the Judicial Intensive Case Management Court since the case was 43 months old. This was a court set up to reign in and move forward matters such as this case where the case had been just churning and no trial date scheduled.
[68] Counsel agreed commenting “…it would help to finally get some trial dates for 2022 would be good.”
[69] The matter was adjourned to the next Intensive Case Management Court on November 19, 2021.
[70] On November 17, 2021, the Trial Coordinator provided counsel with timeslots for scheduling a trial date. December 7, 2021 was set for scheduling a trial date. However, counsel asked for a date before the Intensive Case Management Court date, to “update the court that this is moving forward.”
[71] On November 19, 2021, counsel appeared before me in the Intensive Case Management Court. Counsel advised the Crown about the trial scheduling date set for December 7, 2021. The Crown suggested a short remand and that counsel appear on November 23, 2021, in the self represented court which sits every Tuesday and Thursday. On those days the Trial Coordinator attends to schedule trial dates for self represented accused.
[72] I do not agree with the Crown argument that this period is attributable to defence delay. The parties were ready to set a date once the correct forms had been submitted which I find was February 2, 2021 Counsel had raised the issue of “waiting for trial dates” several times on the record. Counsel followed up with emails to the Trial Coordinator enquiring about trial dates.
[73] Even if I accept that counsel misunderstood that she would be receiving trial dates and not trial scheduling dates and timeslots, that did not contribute to any delay nor was it an indication that counsel was not diligent. The Trial Coordinator’s Office only offered counsel trial scheduling dates on November 17, 2021, which was approximately nine months after the forms were sent to the Trial Coordinator’s Office.
[74] I find that counsel’s inability to attend court on May 31, 2021 (but did send an email explaining her reasons for not attending) and on October 15, 2021, did not delay this matter. As much as I can tell from counsel and her agent’s previous appearances if counsel or her agent appeared they would still have been without trial dates or a trial scheduling date. I fail to see how the two missed court appearances exemplified a lack of diligence in setting a trial date.
[75] In my view, it was the omission of the Trial Coordinator’s Office to act on or to follow up on the trial scheduling forms that prolonged the case and not the lack of diligence by counsel.
[76] After the trial scheduling forms had been submitted on February 2, 2021, it was counsel who raised the issue of waiting for trial dates and undertook, on the record, to follow up with the Trial Coordinator’s Office. Moreover, it was not until the case was sent to the Intensive Case Management Court on November 15, 2021, that the Crown took any proactive steps in moving the case further along beyond voicing the occasional concern on the record. There was no indication that the Crown contacted the Trial Coordinator’s Office to enquire why trial dates, or a scheduling date, had not been offered during this period.
[77] I cannot characterize the period between February 3, 2021, and November 23, 2021, as defence delay.
November 3, 2022– November 15, 2022 = 13 days
[78] This period reflects the time between the first trial date offered where the Crown was available and the first date that was accepted by the Applicant.
[79] November 2-3, 2022, and November 9-10, 2022, were offered for a two-day trial, but the Applicant was not available. The trial dates of November 15-16, 2022 were accepted.
[80] Therefore, I find the period between November 3, 2022, and November 15, 2022, as defence delay. (13 days)
Defence Unable to Conduct a Trial During Summer 2021 – March 3, 2022
[81] The Applicant had an outstanding matter in Milton scheduled for trial. On March 3, 2022, his trial on that matter was adjourned on consent. The Applicant’s affidavit indicated at paragraph 12 that in fact he made two requests for his trial to be adjourned due to depression in the summer of 2021 and March 3, 2022.
[82] The Crown submits that the period from the summer of 2021 until March 3, 2022, should be considered defence delay since the Applicant was not fit to participate in the trial process due to his medical issues.
[83] I am not persuaded by the Crown’s argument for the following reasons. First, no trial dates were offered between the summer of 2021 and March 3, 2022. The earliest trial date offered in this matter was November 2-3, 2022. Secondly, it is entirely speculative to know if the Applicant was unable to participate in a trial in Brampton had earlier dates been provided.
Summary of Defence Caused Delay:
[84] I find that the total defence caused delay in this matter is 774 days (439+28+139+36+27+92+13 = 774 days).
Total Net Delay:
[85] The total net delay is 901 days (1675-774 days = 901 days). The Net Delay exceeds the presumptive ceiling.
Exceptional Circumstances:
[86] The COVID-19 pandemic caused 210 days delay and is characterized as an exceptional circumstance.
The Remaining Delay:
[87] After the exceptional circumstance of 210 days is subtracted from the net delay (901 days – 210 days) the remaining delay is 691 days or 22.71 months.
Conclusion:
[88] The remaining delay exceeds the Jordan presumptive ceiling in the Ontario Court of Justice. There will be a stay of proceedings due to the unreasonable delay in this matter. The Application is granted.
Orally Released: November 15, 2022
Written Reasons Released: November 21, 2022
Signed: Justice P.T. O’Marra
APPENDIX A
LAPIN, ANATOLI – Timeline of Events with Respondent’s Submission re Defence Delay
Legend: COURT APPEARANCE Crown submission as to Defence Delay Defence delay conceded Exceptional circumstances conceded
| Date | Status | Purpose of Remand | Delay |
|---|---|---|---|
| April 17 2018 | Info Sworn | ||
| April 27, 2018 | FIRST APPEARANCE | For disclosure | |
| May 18, 2018 | SET DATE DISCLOSURE RECEIVED | For review of disclosure and to potentially hire private counsel | Crown submits May 18, 2018 – July 3, 2019 is Defence delay – 411 Days Defence Delay |
| June 22, 2018 | SET DATE | To retain counsel - Crown requests movement by next court date | |
| July 6, 2018 | SET DATE | No show - BW issued at 4:18 p.m. | |
| Nov 16, 2018 | SET DATE | No show - BW issued at 3:42 p.m. | |
| June 5, 2019 | SET DATE | BW rescinded - Mr. Lapin requests more time (p 6 of transcript). | |
| July 3, 2019 | SET DATE | To fill out LAO application and retain counsel - if no movement self rep JPT on NCD | |
| July 31, 2019 | SET DATE | Counsel Yulia Platanov in the process of being retained and anticipates retainer being perfected by next court date and requested Aug 28, 2019. Crown wants JPT if counsel not moving matter forward | Crown submits July 3, 2019 – July 31, 2019 is Defence delay – 28 days Defence Delay |
| August 28, 2019 | SET DATE | Counsel just retained - submitted a written request for outstanding disclosure items - Crown does not see request in file asks for counsel to write again | Crown submits July 31, 2019 – Aug 28, 2019 is Defence delay – 29 days Defence Delay |
| September 18, 2019 | SET DATE | Counsel in the process of scheduling CPT - Crown notes this is a straightforward matter – “….it’s relatively straight forward, it’s impaired over 80 charge, so the Crown pre-trial could be done by the resolution Crown downstairs at any time of the week as opposed to waiting to arrange a Crown pre-trial” – page 3 of transcript | Crown submits Sept 18, 2019-Feb 3, 2020 is Defence delay - 139 days Defence Delay |
| October 16, 2019 | SET DATE | CPT scheduled for Nov 15 | |
| Oct 25, 2019 | CPT scheduled in Crown's system - did not happen | ||
| November 15, 2019 | CPT scheduled as per portal - did not happen | ||
| November 27, 2019 | SET DATE | CPT rescheduled for December 27 | |
| December 27, 2019 | CPT scheduled as per portal - did not happen | ||
| January 8, 2020 | SET DATE | Says both CPT were missed by the Crown - provides name of assigned Crown - Ms. Graham. Crown notes online system is only system Crown uses | |
| February 3, 2020 | CPT | TTEF provided to Counsel via Email – Crown notes a JPT may not be required | |
| February 4, 2020 | Email from Defence to Crown | Defence is ready to set trial date – agrees 2 day trial required | Crown submits February 4, 2020 -March 10, 2020 is Defence delay – 36 days Defence Delay |
| February 5, 2020 | SET DATE | To set JPT - Csl says it's a 3-day matter - JPT set for March 10, 2020 | |
| March 10, 2020 | JPT was to occur | ||
| March 10, 2020 | SET DATE | JPT rescheduled to April 3 at Defence request | March 10, 2020 – April 6, 2020 Defence Delay Conceded – 27 Days Defence delay conceded |
| April 3, 2020 | JPT | ||
| April 6, 2020 | SET DATE | No show - DBW to June 15 2020 | April 6, 2020 – November 2, 2020 – Pandemic delay conceded – 210 days exceptional circumstances conceded |
| June 15, 2020 | SET DATE | Blanket pandemic adjournment | |
| August 24, 2020 | SET DATE | Blanket pandemic adjournment | |
| November 2, 2020 | SET DATE | For counsel to get trial dates - Counsel has not yet submitted the forms | Crown submits November 2, 2020 – Feb 2, 2021 is Defence delay – 93 days Defence Delay |
| January 4, 2021 | SET DATE | Waiting on trial date - Counsel submitted forms | |
| January 4, 2021 | TSF submitted to TC by Defence | ||
| January 8, 2021 | TC emails defence back asking for TTEF to also be sent in | ||
| January 25, 2021 | SET DATE | Waiting on trial date - Counsel submitted forms | |
| February 2, 2021 | Crown provides TTEF from JPT to TC and Defence (Defence already had copy of form – this was a courtesy by the Crown) Subject line of email: “R v. Lapin, Anatoli” | Feb 2, 2021 – Nov 23, 2021 is 295 days. Crown submits 265 days of the 295 days is Defence delay | |
| February 5, 2021 | Email to Defence from TC Subject line of email: “Trial scheduling form – Lapin, Anatoli” | TC’s office has the trial forms and will be in touch as soon as reasonably possible | |
| February 22, 2021 | SET DATE | Waiting on trial date - Counsel submitted forms | |
| February 24, 2021 | Email exchange between Defence and TC Subject line of email: “R v. Lapin scheduling a trial” | TC responds to Jan 12, 2021 email from Defence asking for Trial Time Estimate Form. Defence responds indicating she thinks it’s a form that should be sent in by the Crown | |
| April 12, 2021 | SET DATE | Waiting on trial date - Counsel submitted forms | |
| May 31, 2021 | SET DATE | No show, defence request for 4 weeks in email to Crown | |
| June 28, 2021 | SET DATE | Waiting on trial date - Counsel submitted forms | |
| Aug 23, 2021 | SET DATE | Waiting on trial date - Counsel submitted forms - Crown asks if she's followed up w TC - she says yes and will follow up again | |
| Aug 23, 2021 – Aug 25, 2021 | Emails between Defence and TC Subject line of email “R v. Lapin, Anatoli” | Defence emails TC following up to get trial dates. TC responds asking for forms Defence responds – they have been submitted TC responds – please submit forms to this threat. They have searched the subject name and cannot locate forms. | |
| Oct 18, 2021 | SET DATE | No show - DBW to Nov 15 | |
| Nov 11, 2021 | Email to Defence from TC Subject line of email: “Trial scheduling form – Lapin, Anatoli” | Defence following up asking how to get dates | |
| Nov 15, 2021 | SET DATE | Waiting on trial date - Counsel submitted forms | |
| Nov 17, 2021 | Email to TC to Defence Subject line of email: “Trial scheduling form – Lapin, Anatoli” | TC provides dates for timeslot for scheduling | |
| Nov 19, 2021 | JUDICIAL CASE MANAGEMENT | Meeting with TC scheduled for December 7 for trial dates - put to Nov 23 in 302 to get dates from TC given age of matter | |
| Nov 23, 2021 | JUDICIAL CASE MANAGEMENT | Booking trial dates | |
| Nov 2-3, 2022 | First trial date offered Rejected by defence | Crown submits November 3, 2022 -Nov 15, 2022 is Defence delay – 13 days Defence Delay | |
| Nov 15-16, 2022 | Trial |
[^1]: R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27, para. 47. [^2]: Jordan, para. 66. [^3]: Jordan, para. 66. [^4]: Jordan, para. 47. [^5]: Jordan, para. 47. [^6]: Jordan, para. 47. [^7]: Jordan, para. 68. [^8]: Jordan, para. 71. [^9]: Jordan, para. 75. [^10]: Jordan, para. 80. [^11]: Jordan, para. 48. [^12]: R. v. Isaacs, 2016 ONSC 6214 at paras. 89-93. [^13]: See transcript dated October 16, 2019. [^14]: R. v. Hanan, 2022 ONCA 229 at paras. 45 and 46. [^15]: See transcript dated November 27, 2019. [^16]: R. v. Kaur, [2021] O.J. No. 6425 at para. 26.