3 total
Impaired driving charges stayed due to an 18.5-month net delay exceeding the Jordan ceiling.
The accused brought a section 11(b) Charter application alleging a violation of his right to be tried within a reasonable time.
The total delay from the date the Information was sworn to the anticipated end of trial was 909 days (29 months and 25 days), exceeding the presumptive ceiling of 18 months established in R. v. Jordan.
After deducting defence delay and apportioning delay arising from the rescheduling of the original trial date equally between the defence and Crown, the net delay was 562.5 days (18.5 months).
The Crown failed to establish exceptional circumstances justifying the delay.
The application was granted and the charges were stayed.
The accused was acquitted of refusing a breath demand due to a Charter breach but convicted of careless driving.
The accused was charged with failing to comply with a breath demand under the Criminal Code and careless driving under the Highway Traffic Act.
During his arrest, the police officer inadvertently recorded the accused's private telephone consultation with duty counsel, which the Crown conceded was a violation of his right to counsel under section 10(b) of the Charter.
The court determined that admitting the evidence of the refusal would bring the administration of justice into disrepute due to the serious breach of solicitor-client privilege, resulting in the exclusion of the refusal evidence and an acquittal on the criminal charge.
However, based on video evidence of aggressive driving and signs of impairment, the court found the accused guilty of the provincial offence of careless driving.
The court stayed an impaired driving conviction due to unreasonable trial delay caused by systemic judicial under-resourcing.
The Ontario Court of Justice granted Aaron Nazeer's application for a stay of proceedings under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, finding that his right to be tried within a reasonable time was violated.
The total delay of 743 days (24.4 months) far exceeded the 18-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.
After subtracting defence-caused delay (82 days) and exceptional circumstances (54 days due to the death of the original trial judge), the remaining delay was still 607 days (20 months), exceeding the ceiling.
The court found no complexity in the case to justify the delay and emphasized systemic under-resourcing and judicial scheduling deficiencies in Orangeville Provincial Court as the primary cause of delay.
The applicant was found to have made sustained efforts to expedite the trial, and the delay was deemed unreasonable, warranting a stay of proceedings.
