2 total
The court granted a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable retrial delay caused by the Crown's inconsistent positions on disclosure.
The applicant, J.P., sought a stay of criminal proceedings due to an alleged infringement of his s. 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time.
This was a retrial after a previous stay was overturned on appeal.
The court found that the constitutional clock reset to zero upon remittance from the Court of Appeal, and the 30-month Jordan ceiling applied.
Despite the net delay being below the ceiling, the court conducted a contextual analysis, finding that the Crown's inconsistent positions and failures regarding disclosure of the applicant's cellphone caused significant and unreasonable delay, necessitating the defence to bring additional applications.
The court concluded that the defence took meaningful steps to expedite proceedings, while the Crown did not, leading to the delay markedly exceeding what was reasonable.
A stay of proceedings was granted.
Accused's police statements ruled voluntary and admissible; operating mind established despite drug use and missing caution.
The Crown brought a pre-trial application to determine the voluntariness of video-recorded statements made by the accused during a police interview.
The accused argued the statements were involuntary, primarily asserting he lacked an operating mind due to prior drug use and mental health issues, and that police failed to provide a standard primary caution before the interview.
The court applied the confessions rule framework, finding no evidence of threats, promises, oppression, or police trickery.
The court concluded the accused possessed an operating mind, as he demonstrated cognitive ability, knew he was speaking to a police officer, and understood the potential consequences of his statements, having received cautions earlier and spoken to counsel.
The statements were ruled voluntary and admissible.
