O. Wigderson

The applicant, charged with sexual assault, brought an application to stay proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter due to pre-trial delay.

The applicant argued that a new presumptive ceiling of 22 months should apply to cases proceeding to the Superior Court without a preliminary hearing following the enactment of Bill C-75.

The court rejected the proposed new ceiling, finding no evidence to justify altering the Jordan framework, especially given ongoing systemic delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The net delay of 26.7 months fell below the 30-month Jordan ceiling, and the application was dismissed.

The applicant was convicted of attempted robbery and subsequently retained new counsel to bring a mistrial application prior to sentencing, alleging ineffective assistance by his trial counsel.

The applicant argued his trial counsel failed to adequately prepare, failed to cross-examine key Crown witnesses on prior inconsistent statements, and provided flawed advice regarding the waiver of a preliminary inquiry.

The Superior Court of Justice found that trial counsel's failure to cross-examine key witnesses on crucial evidence and failure to properly advise the applicant on the benefits of a preliminary inquiry compromised trial fairness.

The mistrial application was granted.

The applicants brought a pre-trial motion seeking a stay of proceedings for abuse of process, alleging widespread police misconduct in the execution of wiretap authorizations, particularly regarding the interception of privileged solicitor-client communications.

During the motion, police witnesses testified about their handling of intercepted communications, prompting the applicants to seek disclosure of the legal advice the police received from Crown counsel.

The Crown asserted solicitor-client privilege over the advice.

The court held that while the individual officers did not waive privilege, the applicants met the threshold to pierce the privilege under the 'innocence at stake' exception as adapted for an abuse of process motion.

The court ordered a stage-two in-camera review of the privileged communications to determine if they should be disclosed to the defence.