P. Thorning

The accused applied for a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter alleging breach of the right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b).

They were charged with cocaine trafficking offences under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and faced a projected delay of over 50 months from charge to the anticipated completion of trial.

The court applied the framework from R. v. Morin, assessing the length of delay, waiver, reasons for delay, and prejudice to the accused.

Significant portions of the delay were attributed to the Crown’s failure to provide timely disclosure and inadequate case management.

The court concluded that the applicants’ s. 11(b) rights were breached and that a stay of proceedings was the appropriate remedy.

The appellant appealed convictions for two counts of assault with a weapon and one count of possession of a weapon dangerous to the public peace arising from a street altercation involving multiple participants.

He argued the trial judge misapprehended key identification evidence, improperly relied on hearsay to support continuity of identification, and failed to consider self-defence.

The appeal court held the trial judge properly assessed the reliability of eyewitness testimony, applied the W.(D.) framework, and did not rely on hearsay for a prohibited purpose.

The court further found no air of reality to a self-defence claim given the defence theory that the appellant did not possess the knife.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted, but the sentence was found to be within the acceptable range.

Several accused charged with robbery with a firearm, possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, and attempted murder brought applications to exclude or edit numerous text and BBM messages that the Crown sought to introduce at trial.

The applicants argued the messages constituted impermissible similar fact evidence and risked unfair prejudice by suggesting involvement in multiple robberies.

Applying the principles governing similar fact evidence from R. v. Handy, the court assessed whether the probative value of each message outweighed its prejudicial effect.

The court held that references suggesting multiple robberies or unrelated criminal activity should generally be edited or excluded, while messages directly relevant to the planning or execution of the charged robbery were admissible.

The court therefore ordered specific edits or exclusions for numerous messages and permitted others with potential limiting instructions to the jury.

The accused brought a pre‑trial application seeking exclusion of evidence relating to firing‑pin indentations on three cartridges recovered from the scene of an alleged robbery and attempted murder.

Police had test‑fired two of the cartridges during the investigation, which obliterated the original firing‑pin impressions and prevented later forensic comparison with a handgun recovered a year later.

The accused argued that the loss of the original impressions constituted unacceptable negligence and breached their right to make full answer and defence under s. 7 of the Charter, warranting exclusion of the evidence.

The court found that the police conduct amounted to unacceptable negligence and therefore constituted a breach of s. 7.

However, the court held that exclusion of the evidence was not an appropriate remedy because the potential prejudice was speculative and could be addressed through cross‑examination and a jury instruction regarding the Crown’s failure to preserve evidence.