Stuart Rothman

The applicant was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level over 80 mgs on May 24, 2012.

The trial was scheduled for September 3, 2013.

The applicant brought a section 11(b) Charter application alleging unreasonable delay.

The court found that the total delay was approximately 15 months, with the Crown responsible for at least 2.5 months of delay due to delayed disclosure and institutional delay accounting for 11.5 months.

The court determined that the institutional and Crown delay was unreasonable and granted the application, imposing a stay of proceedings.

The accused brought a motion for a stay of proceedings pursuant to section 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging that his right to be tried within a reasonable time under section 11(b) of the Charter had been infringed.

The accused faced charges of impaired driving and driving with a blood-alcohol concentration in excess of the legal limit arising from an incident on December 27, 2010.

The information was sworn on January 4, 2011, and the trial was scheduled for October 19, 2012, resulting in approximately 21.5 months of delay.

The court applied the framework established in R. v. Morin and found that while institutional resource constraints accounted for approximately 9.5 months of delay (within the 8-10 month guideline), the accused had not established sufficient prejudice to warrant a stay of proceedings.

The motion was dismissed.

The accused was charged with three counts of fraud over $5,000 relating to three cheques totaling $115,000 drawn on the victim's account.

The Crown alleged the victim provided the cheques in blank to the accused to settle her debts, but the accused dishonestly made them payable to himself and his company.

The accused claimed the funds were a deposit for the victim's purchase of his restaurant.

The court found the accused guilty on two counts relating to $100,000 deposited to his company, finding he lacked authority to use the funds for that purpose.

The court acquitted the accused on the third count for $15,000, finding reasonable doubt as he had partial authority to use those funds to settle the victim's debts.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while his blood alcohol level was over 80 mgs on February 10, 2011.

The trial was scheduled for April 12 and 13, 2012, approximately 14 months after the charge.

The accused brought a section 11(b) Charter application alleging a violation of his right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The court found that institutional delay of 11.5 months was unreasonable and unacceptable for a relatively simple 1.5 day trial, particularly where the defence and Crown were not responsible for the delay.

The court granted a stay of proceedings as the appropriate remedy.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference of an 11-year-old child on August 30, 2011.

The Crown alleged that the accused touched the child's breasts and vaginal area outside her clothing while she sat on his lap in his garage.

The accused denied all allegations, claiming the contact was innocent and that the child voluntarily sat on his lap.

The trial turned on credibility assessments of the complainant, a nine-year-old witness who observed the alleged conduct, and the accused.

The court found the complainant and the child witness credible and rejected the accused's evidence, finding him guilty as charged.