Renee Gregor

A young person brought an application to stay charges pursuant to section 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for breach of the section 11(b) right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The applicant faced charges arising from offences alleged to have occurred on October 25, 2015, including unlawfully being in a dwelling house, possession of a weapon, possession under $5,000, mischief to property, obstructing a peace officer, failing to comply with recognizance, and possession of MDMA.

The trial was originally scheduled to commence on November 9, 2016, but was delayed due to various procedural issues, including a defective information naming an incorrect accused, defence applications to quash the information and sever charges, and the recusal of the original trial judge.

The applicant argued that the total delay of approximately 18 to 20 months exceeded the presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan and constituted an unreasonable delay.

The Crown argued that exceptional circumstances and defence delay should be deducted from the total delay, bringing it within acceptable limits for a transitional case.

A young person brought an application to stay charges pursuant to section 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for breach of section 11(b) rights (right to be tried within a reasonable time).

The applicant faced charges on two informations arising from offences alleged to have occurred on October 25, 2015.

The application was heard following the recusal of the original trial judge.

The court considered the framework established in R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27, and applied it contextually to a case involving a young person and proceedings that commenced before the Jordan decision was released.

The court found that the Crown established exceptional circumstances justifying the delay and that the defence failed to demonstrate a violation of section 11(b) rights.

The accused applied to sever sexual offence counts involving one complainant from counts involving three other complainants, all alleging misconduct when the complainants were minors.

Applying the severance framework under s. 591(3) of the Criminal Code and the factors identified in Last, the court held that the allegations shared a sufficient factual and legal nexus, the evidence would not be complex, and the Crown had a viable similar fact application.

Although the accused's stated intention to testify on some counts but not others weighed in favour of severance, the risks of inconsistent verdicts, duplication of proceedings, added stress on young complainants, and Jordan timeline concerns favoured a joint trial.

The application was denied.

The offender was found guilty of touching a person under 16 for a sexual purpose, involving a long-term relationship with a young person in a position of trust.

The court determined a fit sentence was 7 years (84 months) imprisonment.

The court then considered the offender's pre-sentence custody at the Sudbury Jail, which involved frequent lockdowns, overcrowding, mice infestations, and extended segregation.

Applying the principles from Summers and Duncan, the court awarded 1.5:1 credit for time served plus an additional 9 months for harsh conditions, resulting in a total credit of 46.5 months and a net sentence of 37.5 months.

The applicant sought an order quashing a preliminary hearing judge's decision to commit her for trial on five charges, including firearm possession, unlawful transfer, theft of chattels, unlawful entry into a dwelling, and possession of a firearm obtained by crime.

The court reviewed the committal for jurisdictional error, specifically the absence of evidence on essential elements.

The court found sufficient evidence for committal on the firearm charges (Counts 1, 2, 5) and theft (Count 3, limited to money and the firearm).

However, the committal for unlawful entry (Count 4) was quashed because the applicant, as a joint owner of the matrimonial home without an exclusive possession order, had a lawful right to be there.

The Crown applied under section 486.2(1) of the Criminal Code for an order allowing two child witnesses to testify via video link from outside the courtroom in a trial for sexual assault and sexual interference.

The defence objected to the use of remote video technology, arguing the court had discretion to order a different accommodation, such as testifying behind a screen.

The court held that under section 486.2(1), the presiding judge has no discretion to alter the requested accommodation unless it would interfere with the proper administration of justice.

Finding no such interference, the court granted the Crown's application with specific conditions to ensure trial efficiency.

The accused, facing serious charges including aggravated assault and breach of probation, sought bail based on a material change in circumstances, namely a new proposed surety and a stated willingness to undergo alcohol treatment.

The court acknowledged the Gladue factors present but found their impact lessened by the seriousness of the charges.

Given the accused's extensive criminal record, including numerous breaches of court orders and violent offences, the court concluded that the proposed plan did not adequately address the secondary grounds for detention.

Bail was denied.

The applicant sought review of bail conditions requiring an acceptable surety and a $10,000 non-deposited pledge after being charged with sexual offences against his stepdaughter.

He proposed release to the Elizabeth Fry Society with residence at the Salvation Army, daily reporting, and a reduced pledge of $500, arguing that stricter conditions effectively denied bail given his indigence and engaged s. 11(e) Charter concerns.

The court held that the justice of the peace reasonably concluded the proposed institutional supervision was inadequate to manage the risks, particularly given the applicant's prior failures to appear, breach history, lack of fixed address, lack of employment, and weak community ties.

Deference was owed to the original bail decision, and the application was dismissed.