Rory Gerard Currie

The accused, Cody Lenard, brought an application for a stay of proceedings under ss. 11(b) and 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging unreasonable delay in bringing his aggravated assault charge to trial.

The total delay was 38.5 months, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The court attributed 5.5 months of delay to the defence's unnecessary adjournments.

However, the court rejected the Crown's argument that a 6.7-month period, during which the accused was out of province, constituted defence delay or an exceptional circumstance, finding the Crown failed to prove the accused's knowledge of the charge or police diligence in obtaining a Canada-wide warrant.

With only the 5.5 months of defence delay deducted, the net delay remained 33 months, still exceeding the presumptive ceiling.

The application for a stay was granted.

The accused, charged with sexual assault, sought a ruling on whether various records in their possession met the definition of "record" under s. 278.1 of the Criminal Code, thereby subjecting them to the record screening regime.

The court analyzed different categories of records, including family photos, video footage, emails, social media messages, and family law documents.

The court found that most records did not meet the definition, as they lacked intimate personal information or a reasonable expectation of privacy.

However, two family law documents (Form 13 Financial Statement and Form 17C Settlement Conference Brief) were deemed subject to the regime due to their confidential nature and protected status under the Family Law Rules.

The accused, a 79-year-old man, sought release on a detention review under s. 525 of the Criminal Code.

He was charged with attempted murder and other offences against his former common-law spouse, and subsequently breached a non-communication order while in custody.

Despite a proposed release plan involving GPS monitoring, CCTV, and sureties, and evidence that the accused may be suffering from dementia requiring assessment, the court found the plan insufficient to mitigate the risks.

The court concluded that continued detention was necessary on both the secondary and tertiary grounds.

The accused underwent a detention review under s. 525 of the Criminal Code after being in custody for over four months on charges of uttering threats and breach of probation.

The court found that while the secondary grounds for detention were met due to the likelihood of reoffending, the accused had already served more time in pre-trial custody (with enhanced credit) than the likely maximum sentence of six months.

Consequently, the court ordered the accused's release on terms.

The accused, facing charges of dangerous driving and trafficking large quantities of fentanyl, underwent a detention review under s. 525 of the Criminal Code.

The accused argued that the passage of time, the COVID-19 pandemic, and a new release plan constituted material changes in circumstances warranting his release.

The court found insufficient evidence that the accused was at a greater risk of contracting COVID-19 or suffering severe harm from it in custody.

Furthermore, the proposed release plan lacked sufficient detail to address the significant secondary and tertiary ground concerns arising from the severity of the offences.

The court ordered the accused's continued detention.