Ryszard Wlodzimierz Ellrick Raczkowski

The applicant brought a motion for a stay of proceedings pursuant to sections 11(b) and 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging that his right to be tried within a reasonable time had been infringed.

The applicant was charged with disobeying a stop sign contrary to the Highway Traffic Act under Part 1 of the Provincial Offences Act.

The charge was laid on November 12, 2014, and the anticipated trial date was May 18, 2017, representing a delay of approximately 30 months and 6 days.

Applying the framework established in R. v. Jordan, the court calculated a net delay of 21 months and 18 days, which exceeded the presumptive ceiling of 18 months for Provincial Court matters.

The Crown failed to establish exceptional circumstances to justify the delay.

The court granted the stay of proceedings as the appropriate remedy.

The defendant brought a motion under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms regarding delay in bringing the matter to trial.

The central issue was whether service of the motion record on the Attorney General of Canada and the Attorney General of Ontario via a third-party electronic faxing service ("Got Free Fax") constituted proper service in accordance with the rules of procedure.

The court found that electronic facsimile service through a third-party server does constitute proper service by facsimile, particularly where confirmation receipts demonstrate successful transmission and the service was effected within the required 15-day timeframe.

The appellant appealed a conviction for Proceed Contrary to Sign at Intersection under Section 144(9) of the Highway Traffic Act, which was entered in her absence at an Early Resolution Meeting on March 22, 2013.

The appellant claimed she received no notice of the Early Resolution Meeting and never requested one.

Following an initial conviction on December 13, 2013, the appellant successfully applied for re-opening on January 31, 2013, after which the court directed an Early Resolution Meeting to be scheduled.

The appellant contended she was not notified of this rescheduled meeting.

The court found that absent evidence of proper notice to the appellant of the proceeding that directly affected her rights, and given her uncontested assertion that she was unaware of the proceeding, the conviction must be set aside and a new trial ordered.