Robert Yasskin

The accused, M.W., charged with sexual assault and sexual interference, brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter due to alleged unreasonable delay.

The total delay from information sworn to anticipated trial end was 1334 days.

The court analyzed various periods of delay, attributing portions to defence conduct (e.g., change of counsel, failure to attend court, late notice of s. 11(b) concerns) and exceptional circumstances (COVID-19 pandemic).

After deducting defence and pandemic-related delays, the net delay was calculated to be 514 days (approximately 16.9 months), which falls below the 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial court cases established in R. v. Jordan.

The court found the defence failed to demonstrate meaningful steps to expedite proceedings, and therefore dismissed the application for a stay.

The Crown sought directions regarding solicitor-client privilege over financial documents (cheques and statements of account) obtained from financial institutions during a fraud investigation against the defendants.

The court ruled that cheques to or from a lawyer/law firm are presumptively not privileged when obtained from a financial institution, as they reflect transactions, not communications.

Even if presumed privileged, that presumption was rebutted in this case.

For legal invoices, the court ordered that copies be securely retained until the conclusion of proceedings or destroyed, and that a vetted copy of seized records be made for disclosure.

The applicant, charged with being an accessory after the fact to a targeted contract killing, brought an originating bail application under s. 522 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown alleged the applicant assisted the principal offender by providing a place to change clothes, keeping the clothes, acting as an intermediary, and lying to police.

The court found the applicant failed to meet her onus on the secondary grounds due to her history of obstructing justice in a prior murder investigation, the vulnerability of surviving witnesses, and weaknesses in the proposed release plan.

The court also found detention justified on the tertiary grounds given the apparent strength of the Crown's case, the gravity of the offence, and the need to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

The bail application was dismissed.

The defendant, Ethan Eckstein, brought a pre-trial Charter application challenging the validity of a tracking warrant and search warrants, and seeking to exclude evidence obtained from these searches under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The court found that the tracking warrant was valid, as the Information to Obtain (ITO) provided reasonable grounds based on compelling, credible, and corroborated confidential informant information, despite minor drafting errors.

The court also found that the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the searched unit, thus no s. 8 Charter violation occurred regarding those searches.

Even if Charter breaches had occurred, the court determined that the evidence would not be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter, balancing the seriousness of state conduct, impact on Charter interests, and society's interest in adjudication on the merits.

The application was dismissed.

Bradley Evaschuk was found guilty by a jury on nine counts, including fraud over $5,000, attempt fraud over $5,000, and uttering forged documents.

The fraudulent activities involved submitting 23 false health benefit claims with 300 forged invoices to the City of Toronto's employee benefit plan, resulting in a loss of $23,130.15.

The fraud occurred over several years, partly while Evaschuk was on bail for other charges.

The Crown sought a 16-month custodial sentence, while the defence requested a conditional sentence of 18-24 months.

The court considered the availability of a conditional sentence, noting the indictment straddled two sentencing regimes.

Emphasizing general and specific deterrence and denunciation due to the breach of trust, sophistication, and duration of the fraud, the court imposed a global custodial sentence of six months, followed by 36 months of probation with conditions, and a restitution order of $13,130.15.