Appeared as counsel in 35 cases (2012–2026)
4 total
The court granted a stay of proceedings for unreasonable delay below the presumptive ceiling due to late disclosure.
The accused, R.M., charged with sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, and mischief, brought an application for a stay of proceedings under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging unreasonable delay.
The total delay was 17 months, which is below the 18-month presumptive ceiling for the Ontario Court of Justice.
The court found that the defence took meaningful and sustained steps to expedite the proceedings and that the case took markedly longer than it reasonably should have, primarily due to the Crown's delay in providing core disclosure (the complainant's video statement).
Despite the delay being below the presumptive ceiling, the court deemed it one of the rare cases warranting a stay, emphasizing the Crown's obligation for prompt disclosure and the "culture of complacency" condemned in R. v. Jordan.
The charges against R.M. were formally stayed.
A youthful first offender who pled guilty to dangerous driving causing death received a conditional sentence.
Inderdeep Singh Kandola pleaded guilty to dangerous driving causing the death of Gita Jagpal.
The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence of 3 to 4 years, while the defence sought a conditional sentence of 18 months to 2 years less a day.
The court considered the principles of sentencing, including deterrence, denunciation, and rehabilitation, alongside mitigating factors such as the offender's youth, lack of criminal record, remorse, and strong community support.
The judge also took into account the conditions in provincial correctional facilities.
Ultimately, the court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less one day, followed by 30 months of probation, a five-year driving prohibition, and a DNA order, finding this sentence proportionate and effective in achieving sentencing objectives without immediate incarceration.
The court excluded breath samples due to serious Charter breaches and acquitted the accused of impaired driving.
The accused, Ever Antonio Diaz, was charged with impaired driving and having over 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood.
The defence conceded the over 80 charge if breath samples were not excluded due to Charter violations, and contested the impaired charge.
The court found serious breaches of the accused's Charter rights under sections 8, 9, and 10(b), particularly concerning the immediacy of the right to counsel and the police's failure to facilitate access to counsel.
The breath samples were excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.
Regarding the impaired driving charge, the court found the video evidence and other observations insufficient to prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt.
Consequently, the accused was acquitted on both counts.
The court dismissed the accused's section 11(b) Charter application because the net delay fell below the 18-month presumptive ceiling.
Peter Robbins, charged with assault and multiple counts of sexual assault, applied for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, arguing his right to be tried within a reasonable time was violated.
The total delay from the laying of the information to the anticipated end of the trial was 562 days (18 months and 14 days), exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling set by R. v. Jordan.
The court analyzed periods of delay, including defence-caused delays such as counsel's unavailability and rejection of earlier trial dates.
The court found that 57 days of the delay were attributable to the defence.
After deducting this, the net delay was 507 days (16.67 months), which falls slightly below the 18-month presumptive ceiling.
The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.
