The accused brought a Charter s. 11(b) application seeking a stay in a multi-count arson prosecution marked by prolonged and serious disclosure failures.
The court held that the Crown failed to establish any additional defence delay, failed to show the matter was particularly complex, and bore sole responsibility for the prosecution's mismanagement, including late and mishandled disclosure, missed judicial pre-trials, and inconsistent positions about key evidence.
The court further held that even if the matter could theoretically conclude below the Jordan ceiling, the defence had taken meaningful steps to expedite the case and the prosecution had taken markedly longer than it reasonably should have.
A stay of proceedings was granted under s. 24(1).
