Stéphane Marinier

The Crown appealed a stay of proceedings granted to the respondent, Christopher Musclow, for possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

The stay was based on an alleged breach of his s. 11(b) Charter right to a trial within a reasonable time.

The total delay was 59.5 months, with 18.5 months attributed to defence delay and 21 months to exceptional circumstances (illness of a key police witness), leaving a net delay of 20 months, which is below the 30-month presumptive ceiling.

The application judge, however, found the delay unreasonable by considering the total delay, including the exceptional circumstances, when assessing if the case took "markedly longer than it reasonably should have." The Court of Appeal found this approach erroneous, clarifying that exceptional circumstances, once deducted, should not be reconsidered in the below-ceiling analysis.

The appeal was allowed, and the stay was set aside.

This endorsement addresses a pre-trial motion concerning the translation of approximately 8300 pages of English-language source documents, including technical reports from a cell phone search, for a self-represented francophone accused with limited English proficiency.

The Crown argued that consecutive interpretation would suffice, while the accused demanded full translation.

The court, emphasizing the accused's linguistic rights under the Charter and his self-represented status, ordered the Crown to translate all source documents and expert reports necessary for the defence.

The resulting adjournment of the trial was attributed to the accused due to his renunciation of previous concessions made by his former counsel.

The self-represented accused applied for a change of venue from Sarnia to Ottawa, arguing that Sarnia lacked a sufficient francophone population for a French jury panel, lacked bilingual court staff, and that Ottawa would be more convenient for his prospective counsel based in Montreal.

The court dismissed the application, finding that census data showed a sufficient bilingual population in Lambton County, the provincial government confirmed bilingual staff would be available, and the convenience of counsel or the accused alone is insufficient to displace the strong presumption that a trial should be held where the offence occurred.

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings under section 11(b) of the Charter due to unreasonable delay.

The court applied the Jordan framework, calculating the total delay and subtracting periods attributable to the defence, including waived delays.

The net delay was found to be below the Jordan ceiling, leading to a presumption of reasonableness.

The applicant failed to demonstrate that the case took longer than it should have.

Consequently, the application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.

The appellant, David Réal Arsenault, appealed his conviction for marijuana production and possession for trafficking, and his sentence.

He raised two grounds: the trial judge's failure to assist him as a self-represented litigant and to rule on a constitutional motion regarding a search warrant, and the violation of his linguistic rights by forcing him to proceed without French-speaking counsel.

The Crown conceded the first ground, agreeing to a new trial and undertaking to seek a stay of proceedings.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on this basis, quashing the conviction and ordering a new trial.

Regarding the linguistic rights argument, the Court found that the trial judge's refusal to grant an adjournment was a reasonable exercise of discretion, as the appellant had not demonstrated sufficient diligence in securing French-speaking counsel over a six-year period.

The Court also found the appellant's new evidence on this point to lack credibility.

The appellant appealed his convictions on three counts of possession of a controlled substance for the purpose of trafficking arising from the discovery of a clandestine methamphetamine laboratory in Scarborough containing approximately 150 kilograms of drugs with a street value of $12 million.

The appellant challenged the verdicts as unreasonable, inconsistent with his acquittal on production charges, and inconsistent with the trial judge's finding that he lacked standing under section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Crown cross-appealed the sentence of 8 years as manifestly unfit and sought a 12-year sentence with delayed parole eligibility.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the conviction appeal and the sentence appeal.

A company pleaded guilty to an offence under s. 148(2) of the Canada Labour Code where injury was caused.

An untrained co-op student and part-time employee operated a crane, resulting in a steel beam falling and crushing a worker's leg.

The worker was off work for two years and unable to resume his prior duties.

The Crown and defendant jointly submitted a fine of $70,000, which the court accepted as appropriate given the early guilty plea, cooperation with investigation, remedial safety measures undertaken, the company's 60-year history of workplace safety, and demonstrated financial hardship.