R. v. R.J.R., 2026 ONSC 860
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
His Majesty the King
-and-
R.J.R.
Patrick Clement, for the Crown
Karl Toews, for R.J.R.
Heard: January 29, 2026
RULING ON MOTION
Pursuant to an order of this court, issued under s.486.4(1) of the Criminal Code, no information that could serve to identify the complainant in this prosecution shall be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way.
COWAN, J
1This is a Charter s. 11(b) delay application in a historical sexual abuse case prosecuted in Owen Sound. The matter went to trial in October, 2025 and ended in a hung jury. It is now set for June, 2026 for a re-trial, 40 months after the charge was laid in February, 2023.
The Law
2In evaluating an application made under s. 11(b) of the Charter, a court must identify and characterize the periods of delay occasioned throughout the trial. This requires an application of the Jordan framework. The court must calculate the total delay, which extends from the laying of the charge to the actual or anticipated end of the trial: Jordan, at para. 47.
3Net delay is calculated by subtracting defence delay from the total delay: Jordan, at para. 60. Defence delay is subtracted because “[t]he defence should not be allowed to benefit from its own delay-causing conduct”: Jordan, at para. 60.
4Delay that lies directly by the defence’s conduct must also be subtracted from the total delay: Jordan, at para. 66. Including periods of time during which the court and the Crown are prepared to proceed but the defence is not: Jordan, at paras. 63-64. The defence is not required to hold itself in perpetual availability, and delays caused by scheduling harmonization difficulties will be looked at holistically and contextually. R. v. Hanan, 2023 SCC 12, 170 O.R. (3d) 240; R. v. Qureshi, 2026 ONCA 20
5If the net delay is above the ceiling, the delay is presumptively unreasonable, and the Crown bears the burden of rebutting this presumption by demonstrating exceptional circumstances: Jordan, at para. 105.
6Exceptional circumstances do not need to be rare or uncommon; rather, they must lie beyond the Crown’s control, in that they are reasonably unforeseen or reasonably unavoidable and, in either case, result in delay that cannot be reasonably remedied by the Crown: Jordan, at para. 69. The Crown must do more than simply identify difficulties in conducting a timely prosecution.
7The Crown may satisfy its onus by relying on two categories of exceptional circumstances, being “discrete events and particularly complex cases” see Jordan, at para. 71.
8Discrete exceptional circumstances are unexpected and uncontrollable happenings which lead to delay: Jordan, at para. 73. Delay caused by discrete events is subtracted from the net delay for the purpose of determining whether the remaining delay continues to exceed the presumptive ceiling: Jordan, at para. 75.
9Discrete events include, for example, medical emergency or illness of criminal justice system participants, recanting witnesses, and elongated trials despite good faith timeline estimates: Jordan, at paras. 72-73; R. v. MacIsaac, 2018 ONCA 650, 141 O.R. (3d) 721, at para. 44.
10The remaining delay may be justified by the Crown where the case is “particularly complex”: Jordan, at para. 77. It is worth stressing that the presumptive ceiling already accounts for the fact that criminal proceedings have become more complex over time. Therefore, in order to discharge its burden under this exceptional circumstance, the Crown must demonstrate that the case is particularly complex: R. v. Cody, 2017 SCC 31, [2017] 1 S.C.R. 659, at para. 63, referring to Jordan, at paras. 42, 53. Regarding complexity Coroza J.A. wrote in Zahor, at para. 105:
A case may be particularly complex where it requires a great deal of trial time or preparation time “because of the nature of the evidence or the nature of the issues”: Jordan, at para. 77 (emphasis in original). Voluminous disclosure, a large number of witnesses, significant expert evidence, charges extending over a prolonged period of time, multiple charges, several pre-trial applications, novel or complicated legal issues, numerous significant issues in dispute, multiple co-accused tried together, and an international dimension to the case are all examples of particular complexity: See Jordan, at para. 77; R. v. Bulhosen, 2019 ONCA 600, 377 C.C.C. (3d) 309, at para. 79, leave to appeal refused, [2019] S.C.C.A. No. 423
11While complex cases often involve serious charges, the fact that a charge is serious does not, on its own, establish complexity: R. v. Bulhosen, 2019 ONCA 600, 377 C.C.C. (3d) 309, at para. 49. Indeed, as observed in Jordan, at para. 78, “[a] typical murder trial will not usually be sufficiently complex to comprise an exceptional circumstance.”
12To analyze the delay in this case, I am employing the approach recommended by D.E. Harris, J in R. v. Hyacinthe, 2022 ONSC 1444, to isolate and concentrate on live delay issues between the parties in order to expedite both the hearing and judicial decision making. In the hearing I characterized this as isolating “where the rubber hits road” and counsel, in the best traditions of the bar, came together to collaborate on a factual background to the case and agreement about periods of delay. Justice Harris encouraged this approach in Hyacinthe, where he wrote at para. 4:
There is no need to go ploddingly through every step of the chronology in every Section 11(b) application.
It might be helpful if before a Section 11(b) oral hearing, counsel could put their heads together and decide what matters and time periods are uncontentious. The facta assist in this regard to some degree but going one step further would be of assistance. A brief document could be compiled to assist the presiding judge. This would train a spotlight on the real issues to be decided and would compress oral submissions and facilitate the judge’s writing and decision making process.
13That is exactly what the parties did in this case, and they are commended for it. An agreed upon detailed summary is attached at Appendix A at the end of this judgment, (that was only edited by the court in but a few areas). The following salient features emerge:
a. The Applicant was charged in February, 2023.
b. The Applicant immediately retained Mr. Toews, before the first appearance, and even before the swearing of the information.
c. Mr. Toews moved the matter through the Ontario Court of Justice to a preliminary hearing with perfect dispatch and efficiency (Mr. Toews concedes, and Mr. Clement accepts, that there are 19 days of defence delay. I will not go behind this concession, but I do find the humility and candour of Mr. Toews in this regard to be exceptional.) The matter was finished in the Ontario Court of Justice in 9 months, when the preliminary inquiry concluded in November, 2023.
d. The matter moved along reasonably well in the Superior Court, with judicial pretrial conferences scheduled and held, and Mr. Toews reaching out to the trial co-ordinator to canvass dates in advance of the first assignment court.
e. While dates were not able to be located prior to the assignment court in March, 2024, they were set at that appearance for….. nineteen months later. 1
14This last period mentioned is unconscionable institutional delay. There is no suggestion that defence unavailability or other defence led step caused any of this delay. At this point, the matter was destined to violate section 11(b). Mr. Toews, consistent with the Supreme Court’s edict in R. v. K.J.M., 2019 SCC 55 [2019] 4 SCR 39, at para 73 was “bring[ing] special concerns about delay to the attention of the Crown and the court” as can be seen in this exchange at the March 4, 2024 Assignment Court:
DEFENCE COUNSEL: That’s fine, Your Honour. I certainly don’t have anything booked in October of 2025 as yet…that the presumptive Jordan date on this matter is August of 2025, and this was discussed at the pre-trial.
THE COURT: Okay. [Crown Counsel], do you want to....
CROWN COUNSEL: We have that noted, Your Honour. As you’re aware, there are a significant amount of judge and jury…that are floating around in the Superior Court. And so, obviously, if counsel wants to consider whether or not their client would re-elect, that would likely move it up in the cue. But as of right now, it’s targeted for October. I know there are a few matters that they have pre-trial motions that are scheduled that may open — end up opening up dates, and I’ll bring this one to [the Crown Attorney’s] attention that counsel has pointed out that the trial will be heard two months after the presumptive date.
15The Crown was required to take reasonable steps – even if ultimately unsuccessful – to circumvent and adapt to problems before the delay exceeded the presumptive ceiling: Jordan, at para. 70; R. v. Morash, 2021 ONCA 335, 405 C.C.C. (3d) 468, at para. 12. While the record shows that the Crown was delay-conscious, for instance, offering a re-election for an earlier date, no other dates were canvassed as the months passed and the vagaries of other matters on the list played out.
16The matter was called for jury selection in October, 2025 and the trial completed in the estimated time. The jury, empanelled before G. Miller, J. could not reach a verdict and a hung-jury mistrial was declared.
17The Crown decided to re-prosecute and a date of March, 2026 was offered, but Mr. Toews was unavailable. A trial date of June, 2026 is now set. Forty months after the charge.
The Mistrial
18This case falls into the category of mistrials for which no one is to blame. It was a straightforward hung jury. The case simply must be re-tried.
19Cases finding themselves being tried for a second time need to be prioritized (see Chozik, J in R. v. Toole, 2023 ONSC 7243 at para 73). Mistrials and retrials require acute Jordan compliance because after all, delay is delay, and as MacPherson J.A. observed in the pre-Jordan case R. v. M.(R.), at para. 4:
As the pages of the calendar turn from months to years, there is a duty on all participants in the case – Crown counsel, defence counsel and the presiding judge – to formally recognize that the case has become a real problem and is in jeopardy of not being heard on the merits because of a violation of s. 11(b) of the Charter.
20The record before me shows that the second trial was adequately and appropriately prioritized. Dates were offered within 5 months of the mistrial, and they did not work due to defence counsel’s schedule. The case was set another 3 months later, yet another reasonable time period to find time for a jury trial. Mr. Toews points out that he is second in line once again on a stacked sittings list. I find that I cannot speculate about that. He may get reached, he may not. For now, that is the trial date, and the date by which I must do the calculation of delay.
21Even if the entire period of the second trial is deducted as an exceptional circumstance and/or defence caused delay, the delay is over 32 months (minus 19 days see paragraph 13(c) above) and thus over the ceiling. The next question is to address Mr. Clement’s submission that pandemic related delay should be deducted, bringing the matter under the ceiling.
COVID pandemic backlog
22Mr. Clement’s position is that the trickle effect of COVID may not have abated completely in 2026. That this court should follow horizontal stare decisis and follow the Owen Sound cases of R. v. T.D., 2024 ONSC 1985 and R v. H.S., 2024 ONSC 2507, because the entire point of those cases is that local trial judges possess unique knowledge about the dockets and realities of the Superior Court in their respective regions (see R. v. Agpoon, 2023 ONCA 449, at para. 26.) In other words, I ought to follow not only their legal reasoning, but also their assessment of the Owen Sound landscape. But Mr. Toews counters reasonably, asking how long are we to take the pandemic into account when the entirety of this case, from arrest to trial, is post-pandemic?
23I accept the Crown’s assessment that the pandemic backlog is potentially still being felt. In March of 2024, when this date was set, clearly cases that arose in 2021 were still in the system. Those cases were not able to “hit the ground running” in the way that Mr. Toews admirably moved this case through the Ontario Court. It was simply not possible. If it is routine that cases come close to 30 months – which it is – then in March of 2024 the backlog was still very much being reckoned with. Thus, the Applicant’s unconscionable 19 month delay from assignment court to trial date may have been affected by the pandemic “trickle down”.
24I borrow that term “trickle down” from the ruling of Ellies J. in R. v. Martin and Doyle, 2025 ONSC 2783, at para 108, decided one month prior to this motion, that pandemic backlog may remain a factor, but it is a waning one. Justice Ellies, like myself, sits in a small remote jurisdiction, not a major centre.
25Owen Sound as a jurisdiction thoroughly canvassed the COVID backlog’s effect on these applications: see R v. J.D. CR-20-020, Unreported, released on November 10, 2022,Sproat J; R. v. T.D., supra released on April 5, 2024; R v. H.S., supra, Conlan J, released on April 30, 2024; R. v. B.B. Unreported, Sproat J., on December 10, 2024. In this last case, the court noted that the time when pandemic delay could be attributed to the backlog was coming to an end, but had not yet done so, and was prepared to deduct 6 months for pandemic delay.
26If in the 8 months between HS/TD and BB we saw the deduction number move from 14 months to 6, then it shrunk to 42% of what it had been. If we continue that “trend” approach, of taking 42% of 6 months at June, 2025 – that would place the pandemic adjustment to be about 2.5 months. If we bring that approach to today, (another six months later) then the total pandemic adjustment would be about one month and this case would still be over the ceiling.
27Another way of looking at it would be that the 14 month deduction in HS/TD was a “static” notion in April of 2024. By static I mean that each subsequent month would see the deduction shrink one-for-one. Support for this is found in B.B. when, 8 months later in December 2024, the deduction was 8 months less. Following this approach would mean that pandemic related delay had fully evaporated by August of 2025, coincidentally this case’s first “Jordan date”.
28Whether we use the “trend” approach or the “static” approach, pandemic related delay does not bring the matter below the ceiling.
29Each step in this case was almost a year after restrictions were lifted for a final time. All the local cases cited above had their genesis in the throes of the pandemic. Finally, the granular features of Grey/Bruce counties wrestling with courtroom usage that featured prominently in HS and TD were long past when this case first appeared.
30I have done the above mathematical approaches in an attempt to faithfully follow the reasoning of my fellow justices who are much wiser than me in the ways of the Owen Sound Superior Court criminal dockets. Either approach, in my view, points to pandemic backlog being a factor that is more theoretical than an identifiable exceptional circumstance. Even if the approach I follow is incorrect and there is some pandemic delay, I find that it is statistically insignificant at this point. I say so keeping in mind that micro-counting is to be avoided under the Jordan framework. To be preferred is the “bird’s eye view” endorsed in Zohar at para 92 :
[I]n Jordan, the Supreme Court stressed that “courts must avoid failing to see the forest for the trees” on a s. 11(b) application, instead endorsing an approach that takes “a bird’s-eye view of the case”: at paras. 37, 91.
31Such view leads me to conclude that the total delay in this case is inexcusable and a stay must issue.
Parity
32My decision is consistent with judges of this court across the province analyzing roughly the same time period (2023-2026). I do so as a matter of judicial parity. Each case must be decided on its own, but similar cases with indistinguishable histories are persuasive. The following cases track approximately the same time frame as the Applicant’s case (arrest to trial) and while they too were barely over the ceiling, they resulted in stays. No COVID/pandemic deductions were made. Some cases were in major centres like Brampton, but some also in smaller jurisdictions, like St. Catharines and Thunder Bay.
R. v. Hankey, 2025 ONSC 2276 (June 2022 – April 2025)
R. v. General, 2025 ONSC 6383 (September 2022 – January 2026)
R v. Chatha, 2025 ONSC 5403 (November 2022 – September 2025)
R v. Pardassie, 2025 ONSC 5448 (January 2022 – July 2025)
33The Thunder Bay case is R. v. Leishman, 2024 ONSC 222, at para 40 (36 months total delay), where Regional Senior Justice Newton stayed a similar charge with a 17 month period of inexcusable delay (non-disclosure delay, as opposed to institutional). That cause straddled the date of the court closures in Ontario and thus would have been much more at risk of pandemic-related delay, yet a stay issued.
34With these similar cases in mind, the delay is over the ceiling, and it contains excessive systemic delay, even after deductions for the mistrial and some defence delay. Trials within a reasonable time serve everyone. The public, the victims of crime, witnesses, and the charged person. The Jordan timelines are “ceilings, not floors”. A stay in this case is constitutionally mandated.
CONCLUSION
35In the result, the Application is granted. Section 11(b) of the Charter has been breached, and the matter is stayed pursuant to section 24(1) of the Charter.
SCHEDULE “A”: DELAY CHRONOLOGY
Date
Summary of Action/ Appearance
Feb. 4 2023
Mr. RJR arrested
Feb. 6, 2023
Mr. RJR retains Kruse Law Firm. Kruse Law submits disclosure request to Crown’s office. Kruse Law files enhanced designation.
Feb. 16, 2023
Information sworn
Feb. 22, 2023
Initial disclosure received. Kruse Law Firm Lawyer Mr. Toews assigned carriage of the matter.
March 2, 2023
First court date – matter adjourned to May 25, 2023 on strength of enhanced designation
March 23, 2023
Mr. Toews’s assistant, Ms. Lyn, contacts Crown’s office to schedule Crown pre-trial.
29 days passed from the receipt of the initial disclosure until Mr. Toews’ office contacted the Crown’s office to schedule a Crown pre-trial. Parties agree there is 15 days of defence delay.
March 29, 2023
Mr. Toews’s assistant, Ms. Lyn, contacts Crown’s office again to schedule Crown pre-trial.
April 4, 2023
Crown’s office responds – offers April 19, 2023 but Mr. Toews not available. April 25, 2023 at 11:00 offered but Mr. Toews not available at that particular time. May 3, 2023 offered and accepted.
May 3, 2023
Crown Pre-Trial with Assistant Crown Attorney Ms. Wilson – Mr. Toews advised matter going to a Preliminary Inquiry and likely a jury trial in the SCJ
May 8, 2023
Mr. Toews assistant, Ms. Lyn, contacts Ontario Court of Justice Trial coordinator to schedule JPT. June 27, 2023 offered as first available date and accepted.
Parties agree there is 4 days of defence delay.
May 25, 2023
Court date - Matter adjourned to July 6, 2023 to accommodate June 27, 2023 Ontario Court of Justice JPT.
June 1, 2023
Notice of election filed - Judge a Jury election with a Preliminary Inquiry indicated.
June 27, 2023
Ontario Court of Justice JPT with Justice Sherwood and Assistant Crown Attorney Ms. McKay – Purpose of JPT was preliminary inquiry setting – parties agreed this will be a one- day preliminary inquiry with complainant as the only witness – Crown stated that there will be a CCTV application prior to the preliminary inquiry
July 5, 2023
Email to Mr. Toews from Assistant Crown Attorney Ms. McKay – VWAP had consulted with complainant and Crown will not be bringing CCTV application prior to preliminary inquiry
July 6, 2023
Court date – matter adjourned to August 3, 2023 with a view to a preliminary inquiry scheduling conference occurring before next court date
July 19, 2023
Preliminary inquiry scheduling conference offered for this date – Mr. Toews not available
August 2, 2023
Preliminary inquiry scheduling conference offered for this date – accepted by Mr. Toews but cancelled by trial coordinator on August 1, 2023 – August 9, 2023 offered for preliminary inquiry scheduling conference
August 3, 2023
Court date – matter adjourned to Aug. 16, 2023 to accommodate preliminary inquiry scheduling conference
August 9, 2023
Trial coordinator reschedules preliminary inquiry scheduling conference to Aug. 16, 2023
August 16, 2023
Court date – Crown in court not clear if Crown bringing a CCTV application - Crown asks for 1 week adjournment to clarify – matter adjourned to August 24, 2023 - preliminary inquiry scheduling conference now scheduled for Aug. 30, 2023
August 24, 2023
Court date – matter adjourned to September 7, 2023 to accommodate August 30, 2023 preliminary inquiry scheduling conference
August 30, 2023
Preliminary inquiry scheduling conference held – Preliminary inquiry scheduled for November 21, 2023 with a focus hearing to be held on September 27, 2023 (Defence counsel not sure if November 21, 2023 was first date offered for preliminary inquiry. Defence counsel does not yet have that transcript)
September 7, 2023
Court date - Crown and Court did not have date setting sheet in Court - matter adjourned to September 14, 2023
September 14, 2023
Court date – November 21, 2023 preliminary inquiry date put on record - matter adjourned to September 21, 2023 to confirm September 27, 2023 focus hearing
September 20, 2023
Statement of issues filed
September 21, 2023
Court date – matter adjourned to September 27, 2023 focus hearing date
September 27, 2023
Court date – Court did not have matter scheduled for focus hearing that day – focus hearing adjourned to September 29, 2023
September 28, 2023
Replacement information sworn
September 29, 2023
Focus hearing held – matter adjourned to November 21, 2023 for preliminary inquiry
November 21, 2023
Preliminary inquiry held – accused committed to stand trial - matter adjourned to matter adjourned to December 6, 2023 assignment court
December 1, 2023
Indictment filed and Mr. Toews’ assistant, Ms. Lyn, contacts SCJ trial coordinator to schedule Superior Court JPT.
December 5, 2023
Mr. Toews assistant, Ms. Lyn contacts SCJ trial coordinator once again to schedule Superior Court JPT. Trial coordinator responds that first available JPT date is January 20, 2024. Mr. Toews not available that day.
Dec. 6, 2023
Assignment court – matter adjourned to Jan. 9, 2024 to schedule Superior Court JPT.
January 9, 2024
Assignment court – adjourned to March 4 assignment court to accommodate January 30, 2024 JPT – (No JPT times were offered prior to January 20, 2024)
January 26, 2023
Email from TC – Justice Conlan asks to postpone January 30 JPT to February 1, 2024.
February 1, 2024
Superior Court JPT with Justice Conlan – agreed this will be a 5-day jury trial with 1 full day for first stage PTM’s and 4 hours for stage 2 of PTM’s
February 14, 2024
Mr. Toews’ assistant, Ms. Lyn, contacts the trial coordinator and the Crown’s office via email regarding scheduling potential trial dates. Ms. Lyn does not receive a response.
February 29, 2024
Ms. Lyn, again reaches out via email to trial coordinator and the Crown’s office regarding scheduling potential trial dates. Mr. Toews also reaches out via email. The trial coordinator sends a response “I have forwarded your request to Ms. Martin to add to the queue for trial.”
March 4, 2024
Assignment court - matter placed on October, 2025 sittings – 19 months later - 5 day jury trial – August 2025 Jordan date put on record by defence counsel – Assistant Crown Attorney Ms. McKay responds that earlier dates are available if defence would re-elect – matter adjourned to May 6, 2024 assignment court in order to set pre-trial motion dates
May 6, 2024
Assignment Court – Mr. Toews informed that he must file his pre-trial motion materials before pre-trial motions will be scheduled – matter adjourned to Sept. 3, 2024 assignment court
July 5, 2024
S.278.1 application materials filed by Mr. Toews
September 3, 2024
Assignment court – Mr. Toews put on record no prosect of re-election – Crown Attorney Mr. Clement now assigned to matter - order appointing counsel for complainant required regarding s. 278.1 application - matter adjourned to October 28, 2024 assignment court – draft order to appoint counsel for complainant submitted by Mr. Clement on Sept. 3, 2024
October 28, 2024
Assignment court – Stage 1 of s. 278 application to be heard Nov. 29, 2024 – matter adjourned to Jan. 7, 2025 assignment court – however counsel for complainant had not yet been appointed.
November 15, 2024
Mr. Toews files application to Adduce Character evidence of complainant materials.
November 18, 2024
Email from SCJ TC – “I do not have anything confirming that matter will be proceeding on Nov. 29. My last note is that counsel for the complainant needed to be appointed.”
November 19, 2024
Email from SCJ TC – Counsel Hedley Thompson will be acting as counsel for complainant – then email from Mr. Thompson’s office later that day that Mr. Thompson is unable to take this matter on.
November 25, 2024
Email from Mr. Toews to all parties asking for clarification as to what is happening on Nov. 29, 2024 – response from TC that she will provide further pre-trial motion dates once counsel for complainant is confirmed – email from Mr. Toews to Mr. Clement asking if Crown will be taking the necessary steps to confirm counsel for the complainant – Mr. Clement responds Crown will do so and that Counsel Neda Chugh has accepted the retainer.
November 29, 2024
Pre-trial motions do not begin as counsel for complainant not yet appointed.
December 30, 2024
Email from Mr. Toews to Mr. Clement asking if counsel for the complainant has been confirmed - Mr. Clement responds that Ms. Chugh has been confirmed as counsel for the complainant and that Crown will be consenting to Stage 1 of the defence s. 278.1 application.
January 7, 2025
Assignment court - stage 1 of s. 278.1 application confirmed for March 14, 2025 with Justice Sproat presiding – also defence application to adduce character evidence of complainant will be heard that same day – Stage 2 of s. 278.1 application will be heard on April 7, 2025
March 12, 2025
Counsel for the complainant, Ms. Chugh, advises via email that she is consenting to stage one of s. 278.1 application
March 14, 2025
Stage one of s. 278.1 application with Justice Sproat presiding – Stage one passed on consent – parties agree that defence application to adduce character evidence of complainant will be heard after complainant testifies at trial
April 7, 2025
Stage two of s. 278.1 application with Justice Sproat presiding– His Honour reviewed records and deemed they contain nothing relevant to an issue at trial – S. 278.1 application dismissed at stage 2 – matter adjourned to Sept. 3, 2025 assignment court – Justice Sproat noted that, by September 3, 2025 assignment court, Court will have a better idea of how October sittings are looking
Aug. 16, 2025
Presumptive Jordan date reached. It is now 30 months said information against Mr. RJR was sworn on Feb. 16, 2023.
September 3, 2025
Assignment court – matter adjourned to Sept. 16, 2025 for “check-in” JPT – ACA Ms. McKay stated in court that the RJR matter would definitely not be part of Oct. 2025 sittings – however email from Ms. McKay later that day apologizing for confusion and advising that there is a 10-day judge and jury matter set to start on Oct. 13 but that the RJR matter “could” be called if that matter does not go ahead.
September 8, 2025
Superior Court resolution JPT with Justice Conlan. However, parties unable to resolve matter.
September 16, 2025
“Check-in JPT” with Justice Chown presiding – matter confirmed as back-up matter for October, 2025 sittings – agreed that there would be a case conference between counsel and Justice Chown to discuss timing of picking of jury – contemplated that jury selection may occur on the afternoon of Oct. 14 with the jury for the priority matter being selected on the morning of Oct. 14.
September 24, 2025
Matter addressed by Justice Chown – counsel directed to attend for the RJR matter at 10:00 a.m. on Oct. 14 for jury selection. Justice Chown noted that there was a “strong likelihood” that the matter would not be reached in October. It was also noted that if this matter is not reached during the October sitting, then His Honour is prepared to look at setting it in November, 2025 civil sittings which start November 10 for three weeks if counsel believe the matter is in 11(b) jeopardy. Mr. Clement noted that he is not sure his office would have a Crown available for the trial if it were postponed to November, 2025.
October 10, 2025
Email from Mr. Clement to Mr. Toews notifying Mr. Toews that the RJR trial will be going ahead on Oct. 14, 2025.
October 14, 2025 to October 22, 2025
Jury trial takes place with Justice Miller presiding – trial ends with hung jury – matter adjourned to Nov. 4, 2025 assignment court to set new trial dates. On October 22, 2025, 32 months and 6 days had passed from when the original information was sworn on Feb. 16, 2023
November 4, 2025
Assignment court – Justice Chown presiding - Ms. McKay for Crown – New trial dates set - Matter now scheduled for June 2026 sittings which begin on June 15 - June 15, 2026 will be 39 months and 30 days since the original information was sworn on Feb. 16, 2023 – Once again, this matter is set as a backup matter. April 2026 dates offered (also as backup matter) – Mr. Toews not available in April of 2026 - Mr. Toews asked if any dates were available sooner than April, 2026 - Justice Chown noted that this matter could always be set as a backup matter (perhaps not even the first backup matter) but there was no realistic possibility that the matter would actually get reached – Mr. Toews put on record that matter is exactly 33 months old today – 11(b) JPT scheduled for November 24, 2025 - Matter adjourned to January 9, 2026 assignment court.