Sevag Yeghoyan

The applicants sought a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter alleging a violation of their right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b).

They were charged with importing cocaine following their arrival at Toronto Pearson Airport with suitcases containing several kilograms of cocaine concealed in altered luggage.

Applying the analytical framework from Morin and related jurisprudence, the court assessed the total delay of approximately 30 months and deducted periods attributable to inherent intake, preparation, and scheduling requirements.

The remaining delay attributable to Crown and institutional causes was calculated at approximately 13 months, below the Morin guideline range of 14 to 18 months.

Although the applicants experienced stress and hardship while on bail, the court found the prejudice largely flowed from the charges themselves rather than delay.

Balancing all factors, including the seriousness of the allegations and societal interest in a trial on the merits, the court dismissed the s. 11(b) applications.

The applicant was charged with sexual assault contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code and sexual exploitation contrary to section 153.1(1) of the Criminal Code.

The applicant sought to exclude a statement provided to police on the grounds of a Charter violation under section 10(b) regarding the right to counsel, asserting that he was detained at the time of the statement.

The applicant conceded the voluntariness of the statement.

The Crown argued that the applicant was not detained and therefore no obligation to provide rights to counsel arose.

The court applied the detention test from R. v. Grant and found no significant physical or psychological restraint.

The applicant voluntarily attended the police station, was treated respectfully and politely, was informed he could leave at any time, and was interviewed in a comfortable witness room rather than an interrogation room.

The court dismissed the Charter application and found the statement admissible.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for assault with a weapon against his girlfriend.

At trial, the judge accepted the complainant's evidence that the appellant smashed a beer glass over her head, rejecting the appellant's denial.

On appeal, the appellant argued the verdict was unreasonable, the trial judge misapprehended evidence, there was a reasonable apprehension of bias, and sought to introduce fresh evidence.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the verdict reasonable, no misapprehension of evidence, no bias, and rejecting the fresh evidence.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, with the court upholding the four-month custodial sentence and probation as fit for an act of domestic violence.