3 total
The court dismissed a bail review application based on COVID-19 risks due to the seriousness of the charges and a weak release plan.
Nathaniel Nelson, facing serious charges including robbery and firearms trafficking, sought a bail review based on a material change in circumstances: the heightened health risk posed by the COVID-19 pandemic in the correctional facility.
The court considered the proposed release plan, which included electronic monitoring, and the impact of the pandemic on the administration of justice and public safety.
Despite acknowledging the increased risk of contracting the virus in custody, the court dismissed the application, finding that Nelson's prior criminal record, the seriousness of the charges, the weakness of the proposed release plan, and the absence of specific medical evidence did not satisfy the court that confidence in the administration of justice would be maintained by his release.
The accused was convicted of impaired driving based on physical observations but acquitted of over 80 due to delayed breath tests.
The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and operation with a blood alcohol concentration over 80 mg/100ml following a collision with a stopped vehicle.
The Crown proved the impaired operation charge beyond a reasonable doubt based on extensive evidence of physical and mental impairment, including the circumstances of the collision, the accused's unsteady gait, disorientation, emotional instability, and extreme intoxication observed by police officers.
However, the Crown failed to prove the over 80 charge because the breath tests were conducted outside the two-hour statutory window, and the court declined to take judicial notice of toxicology calculations to bridge the gap.
Proceedings stayed due to institutional delay prejudicing the applicant's ability to afford an expert.
The applicant sought a stay of proceedings as a remedy for an alleged breach of his Section 11(b) Charter right to trial within a reasonable time.
The court found that over twelve months had elapsed since arrest, with the matter scheduled for a third trial date.
The court attributed approximately eleven months and twenty-two days of delay to institutional causes, including the court's failure to prioritize the matter on the second trial date.
The court also found that the applicant had suffered prejudice by being unable to afford expert toxicology evidence due to financial hardship caused by the delays.
The court granted a stay of proceedings under Section 24(1) of the Charter.
