Reyam Zager

The Ontario Court of Justice considered a section 11(b) Charter application for a stay of proceedings due to delay in the trial of A.H., charged with multiple offences including sexual assault.

The court analyzed the total delay from charge to trial, the defence delay, and the impact of multiple earlier trial dates offered and declined by the defence at the Backlog Reduction Court.

Applying the Supreme Court of Canada’s Jordan framework and recent case law on defence delay apportionment, the court apportioned delay fairly between the Crown and defence, ultimately finding the net delay just under the 18-month presumptive ceiling.

Despite this, the court granted a stay, finding the defence had taken meaningful steps to expedite the proceedings and that the case took markedly longer than it reasonably should have.

This decision addresses a Crown application, brought on behalf of two young women, to revoke existing publication bans on their identities under section 486.51 of the Criminal Code.

The court confirmed its jurisdiction to hear such applications even after the underlying criminal proceedings are complete.

It highlighted that the new legislative provision streamlines the process by removing the requirement for notice to the accused and allowing applications to be heard in chambers.

The application was granted, revoking the publication bans for the two named victims while ensuring other related bans remained in force.

The accused, D.S., was charged with unlawful confinement and sexual assault.

The complainant, L.S., alleged D.S. forcibly confined her and digitally penetrated her vagina without consent.

D.S. claimed the sexual contact was consensual and denied confinement, suggesting L.S. fabricated allegations to gain an advantage in family law proceedings.

The court found L.S.'s evidence credible and corroborated by text messages, while D.S.'s testimony was deemed unbelievable and illogical.

Applying the R. v. W.(D.) framework, the court concluded that D.S. committed both offences without consent.

Mark Anthony Thompson was charged with two counts of failing to comply with a release order, specifically being out of his residence without a surety.

The defense raised the *de minimis non curat lex* argument and challenged the *mens rea* for recklessness.

The court acquitted Thompson on the second count, finding the Crown failed to prove recklessness beyond a reasonable doubt, as Thompson was acting under the direction of his surety.

However, for the first count, the court rejected the *de minimis* defense, considering the seriousness of the underlying manslaughter charge, the strictness of the bail conditions, and Thompson's deliberate, albeit well-intentioned, decision to breach the order.

Thompson was convicted on the first count.