Riaz Timol

The defendants, jointly charged with serious drug and gun offences, brought an application under section 11(b) of the Charter for a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay.

The total delay from charge to scheduled trial date was 29.25 months, exceeding the presumptive ceiling.

The Crown offered priority trial dates, which the defence rejected due to insufficient preparation time, despite the Crown's argument that disclosure issues could be addressed later.

The court found that the offered preparation time (3-4 weeks) was inadequate for a five-day trial involving serious indictable offences, and therefore, the defence was not responsible for the ensuing delay.

After deducting for defence-caused delay and complexity, the net delay remained 27.5 months, infringing the defendants' right to a trial within a reasonable time.

The proceedings were stayed.

The offender pleaded guilty to personating a police officer and simple possession of cocaine following an incident on Labour Day weekend 2015 in Toronto's entertainment district.

While intoxicated, the offender called 911 falsely identifying himself as an undercover officer being assaulted during a drug investigation, diverting significant police resources.

The offender was a 27-year-old first-time offender with no prior criminal record, employed as a project manager, and living with his family.

Post-offence, the offender demonstrated genuine remorse, completed drug counseling, performed over 100 hours of volunteer work, and made charitable donations.

The court imposed a conditional discharge with 18 months probation, finding that the offender's sincere remorse, rehabilitation efforts, and lack of criminal history warranted a non-custodial disposition without a conviction.

The accused pleaded guilty to defrauding a non-profit minor baseball association of $468,166.66 over a six-year period while serving as Treasurer.

The Crown sought imprisonment for two to three years, while defence counsel sought a conditional sentence of two years less one day followed by probation.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less one day in the community followed by three years probation, along with restitution orders and a fine in lieu of forfeiture.

The court balanced the serious aggravating factors (breach of trust, large amount, extended period) against mitigating factors (guilty plea, remorse, no prior record, family support, and rehabilitation potential) and found that a conditional sentence could achieve denunciation and deterrence while promoting restorative justice.

The appellant appealed a conviction for impaired driving, arguing that the trial judge erred in relying on in‑court identification evidence to establish that he was the driver of the vehicle.

The appeal court considered the principles governing eyewitness identification, including the limited weight typically given to in‑court identification.

It concluded that the trial judge did not place undue weight on the in‑court identification and that sufficient independent evidence supported the finding that the accused had been driving the vehicle.

Considering the totality of the evidence, including witness observations and the matching licence plate, the conviction was supported beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was convicted of production of marijuana and possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking following trial.

At sentencing, the Crown sought imprisonment of 18 months to two years less a day followed by probation, along with ancillary orders including a firearms prohibition, DNA order, and forfeiture.

The defence sought a blended sentence combining intermittent and conditional components.

The court rejected the conditional sentence option, finding that while the statutory prerequisites were met, a conditional sentence would not be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing.

The court imposed one year imprisonment on each charge concurrently, followed by three years probation, along with the requested ancillary orders.