Salematou Camara

The Ontario Court of Justice dismissed Dennis Rhodes' application to renew his section 11(b) Charter application alleging unreasonable delay in the trial process.

The court emphasized the importance of timely and proper notice for 11(b) applications as mandated by the Ontario Court of Justice practice direction and Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence, particularly Jordan.

The decision highlights the court's concern with procedural compliance, the history of delay and adjournments in the case, and the exceptional nature required for post-verdict 11(b) applications.

The ruling underscores the judiciary's efforts to manage court resources efficiently and maintain the integrity of the criminal justice process.

The defendant, Dennis Rhodes, brought an application under section 11(b) of the Charter to stay his charges for delay.

The Crown argued the application was materially deficient due to incomplete transcripts.

The defense requested an adjournment, citing late receipt of the Crown's response.

The court dismissed the adjournment request, noting the Crown had provided timely notice of the transcript deficiency.

The court then dismissed the 11(b) application, finding the defendant failed to meet the high onus of providing all necessary transcripts or demonstrating their immateriality, which is required to establish the evidentiary record for a delay application.

The defendant, Dennis Rhodes, sought to bring a Charter application alleging unreasonable delay under section 11(b).

The Crown opposed the scheduling of the application, arguing it was untimely under a new practice direction requiring such motions to be heard four months before trial, and asserting that the trial commenced with an upcoming remote testimony motion.

The Ontario Court of Justice held that the remote testimony motion did not mark the start of the trial, which was scheduled for a later date.

The court further determined that because the practice direction's four-month notice requirement conflicted with the court rules requiring sixty days' notice, the rules prevailed.

Consequently, the court allowed the defendant's application to schedule the Charter motion under the sixty-day timeline.

The appellant, Cory Joseph Marsh, appealed his conviction for assault causing bodily harm, arguing that the trial judge placed undue emphasis on the complainant's out-of-court demeanor evidence and provided insufficient reasons for conviction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly considered the complainant's out-of-court demeanor as admissible circumstantial evidence alongside other confirmatory evidence, and that the reasons for conviction, though brief, were sufficient for appellate review given the straightforward nature of the case and the agreed statement of facts.