3 total
The Court restored a conviction, deferring to the trial judge's assessment of pandemic delay mitigation.
The Crown appealed a summary conviction appeal court's decision to stay proceedings against the respondent for "over 80" due to unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter.
The delay was caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
The summary conviction appeal judge (SCAJ) found the Crown had not taken reasonable steps to mitigate delay by accepting consecutive trial dates instead of exploring earlier non-consecutive ones.
The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal, holding that the SCAJ erred by failing to defer to the trial judge's assessment of local circumstances and the reasonableness of the Crown's actions in managing the pandemic-induced backlog.
The Court clarified that the heightened urgency for scheduling retrials (as per MacIsaac) does not apply to initial trials delayed by exceptional circumstances like COVID-19.
The stay of proceedings was set aside, and the conviction restored.
DNA authorizations quashed; multiple murders committed in close proximity were not committed at 'different times'.
The Crown appealed an order quashing authorizations to take DNA samples from two respondents convicted of multiple murders.
The central issue was the interpretation of section 487.055(1)(b) of the Criminal Code, which permits DNA sampling for offenders convicted of 'more than one murder committed at different times'.
The Court of Appeal rejected the application judge's 'transaction' analysis but affirmed the result, holding that 'different times' requires the murders to be distinguishable in nature or quality.
Because the murders committed by both respondents occurred in close proximity and were not distinguishable in nature or quality, the Crown's appeal was dismissed.
Forcible confinement is a primary designated offence for DNA data bank orders.
The Crown appealed a youth court judge's refusal to make a DNA data bank order following the young persons' guilty pleas to forcible confinement.
The youth court judge had ruled that forcible confinement was not a primary designated offence under the Criminal Code.
The Court of Appeal held that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal and that forcible confinement is a primary designated offence.
The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to a different youth court judge to determine whether the orders should be made.
