Tom Dietrich

The accused brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter alleging an infringement of the right to a speedy trial under s. 11(b).

The accused was charged with importing heroin, conspiracy to import heroin, and conspiracy to possess heroin for the purpose of trafficking.

The information was sworn on September 9, 2016, and trial was scheduled for June 25-28, 2018, resulting in a total delay of 658 days (21 months and 20 days), exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The court found that after deducting defence delay of 105 days, the net delay was 555 days (18 months and 13 days), exceeding the ceiling by 13 days.

The Crown failed to establish exceptional circumstances to justify the delay.

The court granted the stay of proceedings.

The Crown sought to introduce an affidavit from a Program Support Officer of Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada as evidence in a trial for an alleged violation of section 52(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The defendant objected to the admissibility of the affidavit on hearsay grounds and for lack of proper notice under section 28 of the Canada Evidence Act.

The court found that while the affidavit itself was admissible under section 26(2) of the Canada Evidence Act, certain portions containing copies of government records (exhibits A through D) were inadmissible due to failure to comply with section 28 notice requirements.

The defendants brought applications seeking a stay of charges under section 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for an alleged breach of section 11(b) Charter rights to trial within a reasonable time.

The court applied the framework established in R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27, which sets a presumptive ceiling of 18 months for provincial court cases.

The total delay from charge to anticipated trial was 34.5 months.

After deducting defence-waived delay of 8 months and 5 days, the remaining delay was 26 months and 1 week, exceeding the ceiling.

The Crown failed to establish exceptional circumstances to rebut the presumption of unreasonableness.

The court found the Crown's conduct exemplified a "culture of complacency," particularly regarding delayed disclosure of the Information to Obtain.

The applications were granted and all charges were stayed.

An indigenous woman pleaded guilty to importing 347 grams of cocaine into Canada contrary to s. 6(3)(a) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The Crown sought a three-month custodial sentence in addition to time served, relying on principles of general deterrence.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with 24 months probation, finding that the offender's circumstances as an indigenous woman, combined with her significant personal trauma, systemic disadvantage, and demonstrated rehabilitation efforts, warranted a departure from the ordinary sentencing range.

The court applied the Gladue and Ipeelee framework, emphasizing that the Gladue principles apply to serious offences and that general deterrence cannot override the requirement to consider the unique circumstances of indigenous offenders.

This is a preliminary inquiry decision concerning three accused charged with unlawfully importing cocaine into Canada contrary to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The Crown sought to commit all three accused as parties to the importation offence and/or of conspiring to import cocaine.

The evidence established that a young woman was provided with a free trip to Jamaica, where she was instructed to return with a suitcase containing over 1.4 kilograms of cocaine.

The court applied the test for preliminary inquiries, examining whether there was sufficient evidence upon which a reasonable jury could return a verdict of guilty.

The decision addresses the roles of each accused in facilitating the importation scheme, the doctrine of innocent agents, and the elements of conspiracy.