Tonya Kent

The accused brought a pretrial motion for a stay of proceedings, alleging a breach of their s. 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The total delay from the date of the charge to the anticipated end of the trial was 35 months, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in Jordan.

The court found that the Crown successfully rebutted the presumption of unreasonableness by demonstrating that the matter was a "particularly complex case" involving extensive wiretap evidence, multiple accused, and voluminous disclosure.

The court concluded that the Crown had a reasonable plan to manage the complexity and dismissed the application for a stay.

The court determined costs following cross-motions arising years after a trial judgment that had found an enforceable agreement for the purchase and sale of shares.

The defendant had unsuccessfully brought a motion for directions and was found in contempt for attempting to alter the terms of the agreement previously confirmed by the court and upheld on appeal.

The successful parties sought substantial indemnity costs, relying on an unaccepted settlement offer and arguing that the defendant had unnecessarily prolonged the litigation.

The court held that the defendant’s continued attempts to revisit the concluded issues and delay completion of the transaction warranted costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

Costs of $12,650 inclusive of fees and disbursements were awarded and ordered deducted from funds payable under the original judgment.

The defendant brought a motion seeking directions for the completion of a share purchase and sale agreement that had been confirmed by a prior trial judgment.

The moving party sought directions regarding tax structure, adjustments related to a claimed capital gains exemption, interest, and other closing mechanics.

The responding parties opposed the motion on the basis that the court was functus officio and brought a cross-motion alleging contempt for failure to comply with the earlier judgment.

The court held that it lacked authority to provide further directions because the judgment had already finally determined the terms of the transaction.

However, the court found the moving party deliberately failed to comply with the judgment beyond a reasonable doubt and was in contempt.

Orders were made requiring completion of the share transfer and authorizing a representative of the successful parties to execute documents if the defendant failed to comply.