Pieter Joubert

The defendant, charged with aggravated assault, sought a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The total delay exceeded the 18-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The Crown argued that the COVID-19 pandemic constituted an exceptional circumstance, justifying the subtraction of a period of delay.

However, the court found that the primary cause of the delay was the state's failure to provide timely and complete disclosure, not the pandemic.

Following the principles from R. v. Silva and R. v. Ravikumaran, the court determined that the Crown failed to demonstrate that the delay was caused by COVID-19 or that it took reasonable steps to mitigate the disclosure issues.

Consequently, the court refused to subtract the pandemic period from the delay calculation and stayed the proceedings.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of the respondent, Leonard Boucha, on a charge of unlawful use or occupation of land in a provincial park, contrary to the Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserve Act.

The trial court had dismissed the charge, finding it time-barred under section 53 of the PPCRA, which sets a two-year limitation period from when evidence of the offence first came to an officer's attention.

The Crown argued the offence was continuing and/or the limitation period only began when all elements of the offence, including the land being in a provincial park, were known.

The appeal court dismissed the Crown's appeal, affirming that the continuing offence doctrine was irrelevant when the limitation period is based on discovery, and that the trial court correctly found the limitation period began when the cabin was first discovered in January 2015, as the officers then had evidence of an unauthorized structure in either a provincial park or conservation reserve.

The respondent's request for costs was also dismissed.

The accused, a police officer and father, pleaded guilty to assault for using a belt to discipline his child several years prior.

The court considered the significant pre-charge rehabilitation efforts by the parents, the traumatic impact of the subsequent child welfare intervention on the family, and the accused's exemplary character.

Finding that a conviction would have severe repercussions on his employment and that the public interest did not require a conviction, the court granted a joint submission for an absolute discharge.

The accused was charged with impaired operation and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over 80mg.

At trial, the impaired operation count was withdrawn.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging violations of his s. 10(b) right to counsel.

The court found multiple breaches of the accused's right to counsel, including the police officer's failure to properly inform the accused of the police obligation to wait a reasonable time for counsel of choice to call back, failure to wait a reasonable time before contacting duty counsel, failure to facilitate contact with counsel of choice by not searching the internet for alternate numbers, and failure to provide the result of the first breath sample before taking the second.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the breath evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter and acquitted the accused.

Appellants appealed their convictions and sentences for offences under the Fisheries Act and Ontario Fishery Regulations.

The preliminary issue concerned whether the Ontario Court of Justice had jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The Crown argued the charges were federal and subject to Criminal Code summary conviction procedures, requiring appeal to the Superior Court of Justice.

The appellants argued the Provincial Offences Act provided concurrent jurisdiction.

The court held that the charges were federal in nature and the Provincial Offences Act has no application to federal offences.

The appeal was quashed for lack of jurisdiction.

The accused was charged with assault with a weapon (a belt) contrary to s. 267(a) of the Criminal Code and uttering a threat to cause death contrary to s. 264.1(1)(a).

The Crown's case relied on the testimony of the complainant (the accused's spouse), a belt seized at the scene, 911 recordings, and police observations of injuries.

The defence presented the accused's testimony that the complainant attacked him first and that a wrestling match ensued in which he used defensive tactics.

The court applied the W.(D.) test and found that while the accused's evidence was not believed, it raised a reasonable doubt as to guilt.

The court also found significant credibility and reliability issues with the complainant's testimony, including evasiveness on crucial matters and inconsistencies with police observations.

The court acquitted on both counts.

The defendant was charged with assault with a weapon, uttering threats, and mischief under five thousand dollars arising from a domestic incident on November 29, 2017.

The defendant also faced an allegation of breaching a conditional sentence order by failing to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.

At trial, the criminal charges were withdrawn in exchange for the defendant admitting the breach.

The court accepted the admission and found a breach had occurred.

Following submissions on disposition over three court dates, the parties jointly proposed that the defendant continue serving the conditional sentence with amended conditions.

The court accepted this proposal but determined it was necessary to clarify the calculation of time remaining on the conditional sentence, specifically addressing when the sentence was suspended, when suspension terminated, and whether time ran during the suspension period.

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle on May 3, 2017.

The Crown alleged the accused operated a vehicle while impaired by alcohol based on observations of swerving driving behaviour and physical signs of impairment observed by police.

The defence argued the evidence was insufficient to prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found that while the accused had consumed alcohol and exhibited some signs consistent with impairment, the totality of evidence—including the absence of other driving impairment indicators, the reasonable explanation of the accused's condition as tiredness and shock at being awakened by police, and the rapid disappearance of apparent impairment signs—created a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted.