S. Hamilton

The accused applied for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter following his conviction for sexual assault at a second trial.

The first trial ended in a mistrial declared by the judge due to scheduling issues.

The court found that the net delay exceeded the 30-month presumptive ceiling under the Jordan framework.

While the mistrial was an exceptional circumstance, the subsequent 9.5-month delay to schedule the second trial was largely systemic and unreasonable.

The court also found the accused suffered specific prejudice due to the delay.

The application was granted and a stay of proceedings was ordered.

The appellant, an Uber driver, appealed his conviction for sexual assault.

He argued the trial judge erred in law by using the complainant's 911 call as a prior consistent statement to corroborate her trial testimony.

The Superior Court of Justice agreed, finding that the trial judge's reasons indicated the 911 call was impermissibly used as powerful confirmatory evidence of the commission of the offence, rather than for a permissible purpose such as assessing demeanour.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The moving party sought to change a 2016 consent order for spousal support, arguing that his income had materially decreased due to a strike and the COVID-19 pandemic.

The responding party opposed the motion, noting her significant physical disabilities and that the original order was intended to equalize joint debt.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the income decrease was temporary and that the responding party's circumstances justified continued support.

Costs of $1,500 were awarded to the responding party.

The applicant mother sought child support under the Divorce Act for the parties' 27-year-old disabled daughter, who resides in a therapeutic home and receives ODSP benefits.

The court found that the daughter's receipt of ODSP displaced the presumptive Guidelines amount, and that she did not have a monthly budget deficit.

However, the court ordered the respondent father to pay $100 per month as his proportionate share of the daughter's section 7 expenses, such as clothing and personal hygiene items.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 13.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking to transfer a civil action from Kitchener to Oshawa.

The action alleged assault, false arrest, and false imprisonment by police officers arising from an incident in Oshawa, while the plaintiff resided in Cambridge and suffered much of his damages there.

The court reviewed the venue transfer factors in Rule 13.1.02(2)(b), including where the events occurred, where damages were sustained, community interest, witness convenience, and availability of court facilities.

Applying the governing principles that a plaintiff’s choice of venue should not be lightly disturbed and that the moving party must show the proposed venue is significantly better in the interests of justice, the court found the factors largely neutral or balanced.

The defendants failed to demonstrate that Oshawa was a significantly better venue than Kitchener.