S. Marinier

This decision addresses a section 11(b) Charter application by three co-accused seeking a stay of proceedings for unreasonable delay in a large-scale drug importation and trafficking prosecution.

The court found the total delay (41 months) far exceeded the 30-month ceiling set by R. v. Jordan, and that the Crown failed to establish exceptional circumstances or case complexity to justify the delay.

The court found the Crown’s late addition of a key witness, failure to promptly seek additional hearing dates, late disclosure, and strategic choices in evidentiary applications all contributed to the delay.

The court ordered a stay of proceedings for all accused.

The accused brought a motion to adjourn his criminal jury trial, arguing that the Chief Justice's order excluding unvaccinated individuals from serving as jurors violated his rights under sections 11(d) and 11(f) of the Charter.

The accused contended that the order excluded a particular group of independent-minded people, thereby depriving him of a representative jury.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that vaccination status is not a relevant characteristic for jury representativeness and that the exclusion of unvaccinated individuals does not violate the Charter.

An accused was charged with importing more than 2.5 kg of heroin into Canada contrary to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The Crown's case relied entirely on the doctrine of willful blindness.

The accused testified that he had opened the suitcase out of curiosity and to reassure himself, but had not suspected it contained contraband.

The court found the accused's testimony credible and was not persuaded that he harbored suspicions of smuggling when he first opened the suitcase.

The court acquitted the accused.

The accused was charged with importing approximately 500 grams of cocaine into Canada contrary to section 6 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act upon her return from Colombia.

The substance was discovered in her luggage during a secondary examination at Pearson Airport.

The Crown alleged the accused knowingly imported the controlled substance.

The accused denied knowledge of the substance in her suitcase.

The court applied the W.D. analysis to assess witness credibility and found that while the Crown's circumstantial evidence was considerable, the accused's testimony raised a reasonable doubt regarding her knowledge of the substance.

The court acquitted the accused.