Vikramjeet Aujla

The accused was found guilty of dangerous driving following a road rage incident.

He brought an application alleging a violation of his right to be tried within a reasonable time under section 11(b) of the Charter.

Although the net delay of 17.5 months fell below the 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial courts, the court found this was one of the clearest of cases warranting a stay.

The defence made sustained efforts to expedite the proceedings, but the trial took markedly longer than it reasonably should have due to systemic issues, specifically the stacking of trial lists and a chronic lack of judicial resources in the jurisdiction.

The application was granted and the proceedings were stayed.

The defendant was charged with dangerous driving and assault causing bodily harm following a highway incident and subsequent confrontation.

The Crown alleged the defendant engaged in aggressive road rage behavior by pursuing the victim's vehicle at high speed on a wet highway while flashing high beams for approximately 20 kilometres, followed by a physical altercation at a roadside intersection.

The defendant was found guilty of dangerous driving, as his conduct constituted a marked departure from the standard of care expected of a reasonable driver.

However, the defendant was acquitted of assault causing bodily harm due to insufficient evidence to establish that the injury was caused by any deliberate act or felonious intent, given the conflicting evidence regarding the nature of the physical altercation.