Raphael Jacob Feldstein

Accused charged with causing a disturbance and assaulting a peace officer sought a stay of proceedings pursuant to s. 11(b) of the Charter on the basis that her right to be tried within a reasonable time had been breached.

The overall delay was 718 days.

After deducting 99 days of defence-caused delay attributable to failure to retain counsel, obtaining instructions, counsel unavailability for judicial pre-trial, and a partial attribution of unavailability for continuation dates, the net delay was 619 days, exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling by 71 days.

The Crown failed to establish exceptional circumstances, as the case was routine and straightforward, lacking the hallmarks of complexity, and the Crown had not developed a concrete plan to minimize delay occasioned by any alleged administrative complexity.

The Crown appealed a sexual assault sentence but failed to perfect the appeal by missing deadlines for filing materials.

The Crown sought an adjournment, which the respondent opposed, requesting dismissal and costs.

The court denied the adjournment, dismissed the appeal due to the Crown's lack of diligence and non-compliance with rules, and declined to award costs against the Crown.

The appellant, previously convicted of sexual assault, appealed the conviction arguing that the trial judge erred in assessing the credibility of the complainant and the appellant, and misapplied the principles from R. v. W. (D).

The appeal court reviewed the stringent standard for appellate intervention based on misapprehension of evidence.

It found that the trial judge's assessment of credibility, including addressing inconsistencies and finding corroboration, was supported by the evidence and within the appropriate range.

The court concluded that the trial judge properly applied legal principles and did not misapprehend material evidence.

The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were confirmed.

The accused brought an application to strike his guilty pleas to sexual assault and failure to appear.

The accused pleaded guilty on April 11, 2014, after receiving new disclosure moments before trial.

The court found that the accused, who suffered from attention deficit disorder, dyslexia, and a borderline IQ, did not fully understand the plea procedure or his legal options despite appearing articulate.

The new allegations created time pressure to accept a plea bargain.

The court granted the application, finding a real doubt as to the validity of the plea, and permitted the accused to strike his plea and re-elect to his original mode of trial.

The defendant was charged with assault and breach of probation arising from an incident on January 22, 2014, involving his common law spouse.

The Crown alleged the defendant assaulted the complainant in the basement laundry room after she refused to return his car keys when he was intoxicated.

The defendant claimed the injuries resulted from a mutual struggle and accidental contact.

The court applied the R. v. W.D. test and found the complainant's evidence clear, reliable, and corroborated by physical evidence, while the defendant's evidence was evasive and self-serving.

The court convicted the defendant of both assault and breach of the probation order's term to keep the peace and be of good behaviour, though it found the choking allegation was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration in excess of eighty milligrams percent contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The accused brought a section 11(b) Charter application alleging that his right to have a trial within a reasonable time had been infringed.

The overall delay from the swearing of the information on September 5, 2013 to the second scheduled trial date on November 6, 2014 was approximately fourteen months.

The court found that institutional and Crown delay totaled approximately ten months and twenty-five days, with significant delay attributable to late disclosure.

The accused established actual prejudice, as he was caring for his wife who had been paralyzed in an accident on the same day he was charged.

The court found that the delay, exacerbated by the real prejudice, was excessive and offended section 11(b) of the Charter, and ordered a judicial stay of proceedings.

Four young persons pleaded guilty to assault offences stemming from a brutal, unprovoked attack on two victims at a sweet sixteen party on July 29, 2012.

Z.N. wielded a machete and inflicted the most serious injuries, including a deep gash to one victim's neck exposing the spine.

The other three young persons participated in the assault through punching, kicking, and one carried a knife.

The court imposed custodial sentences with probation, with Z.N. receiving the longest sentence due to his role as the primary assailant.

The court applied Youth Criminal Justice Act principles, emphasizing accountability, rehabilitation, and reintegration while considering each young person's individual circumstances and degree of culpability.