Recent Cases

Mr. Pardassie was charged with firearm-related offenses and initially faced a trafficking charge that was later withdrawn. His trial was not scheduled until December 2025, creating a delay of almost four years which is well-beyond the 30-month Jordan ceiling. The court found there were prolonged delays by the Crown including delays in making key decisions and failing to act promptly. The court found that there was a total net delay of 37 months after deducting defence delay. As a result, the court stayed the proceedings due to the violation of the accused’s right to a timely trial under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

Mr. Bajcinca had been charged with possession of stolen property. Despite the investigation being mostly complete at the time of arrest, the slow provision of disclosure by the Crown pushed the anticipated trial to December 2024, over two years after charges were laid. The court found that the Crown’s failure to provide timely disclosure was the main cause of the delay, compounded by systemic issues such as staff shortages and inefficient scheduling. The net delay after deducting defence delay was over 24 months, surpassing the 18-month ceiling. The Crown did not argue that the case was complex or involved exceptional circumstances to justify the delay. This decision reinforced the importance of the Crown needing to provide defence with disclosure to make an election. As a result, Mr. Bajcinca’s Charter right to a timely trial was violated, and all charges were stayed.

The accused was charged with sexual assault after allegedly driving a friend to a parking lot and engaging in sexual intercourse without her consent. The accused applied for a stay of proceedings under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, arguing that the delay in bringing the case to trial was unreasonable. The trial was expected to conclude on November 22, 2023, resulting in a total delay of 1,407 days (about 46 months) from the date the charge was laid. In Superior Court cases, the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R. v. Jordan sets a 30-month presumptive limit. The Crown acknowledged the overall delay but argued that 680 days should be attributed to the defence, which would reduce the net delay to about 24 months, below the Jordan limit. The Crown also argued that some delay should be excused due to COVID-19 related disruptions. The defence argued that it was not responsible for the delays and pointed to significant delays caused by the state, including the late return of the accused’s cellphone while the police attempted to extract data from it. After reviewing the timeline, the court concluded that the accused’s Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time had been violated. As a result, the court granted the application and stayed the charge.

In R. v. Jungas, the court stayed sexual offence charges after finding that the accused’s right to be tried within a reasonable time under section 11(b) of the Charter was violated. The total delay from charge to the anticipated end of trial was about 1,248 days, exceeding the 18-month ceiling for cases in the Ontario Court of Justice set out in R. v. Jordan. A significant portion of the delay resulted from the Crown’s failure to provide key disclosure, specifically, a statement from another child the Crown intended to rely on as similar fact evidence. The police did not provide the Crown with the DVD containing the statement for almost a year and a half, despite repeated requests. The court rejected the Crown’s argument that the defence should have proceeded without the disclosure, noting that such evidence could affect mode of election and potential plea discussions.
After accounting for defence delay, the court found that Crown and institutional delay exceeded the 18-months and was not justified. The proceedings were stayed, and the Crown also stayed related charges.

The case signifies the importance of timely disclosure, particularly of key evidence, such as body-worn camera footage that are central to the defence. This ruling stresses that defence is justified in not moving the matter forward when crucial evidence has not been disclosed by the crown. The Defence counsel in this case sent timely disclosure requests to move the matter forward, however, key disclosure was still not provided. This decision highlights the Crown’s obligation to provide disclosure and emphasises that delays caused by the Crown’s failure to provide timely key disclosure should be attributed to the defence. This case further goes on to show how the ability to make an informed election is dependent on disclosure of key evidence by the Crown and that Defence should not be expected to make an election absent such disclosure. This decision is particularly helpful in cases where failure of the Crown to disclose key disclosure leads to the in-ability of the accused to make an informed election. The judge found no defence delay with re election. The decision puts emphasis on prompt and timely re-elections and how defence should not be held accountable in situations where the re-election occurred due to the inability of the Crown to provide timely disclosure. Re-elections are not automatic defence delay and the reasons behind why they occur are significant in determining the cause of delay.

The accused was charged with one count of sexual assault. The total delay from the date the Information was sworn, to the final date of trial was 1,021 days as per the calculation. The parties agreed that the total delay in this case was over the 18-month ceiling, specifically 1021 days. In calculating the defence delay, the Court focused on the main time periods. There had been a significant delay on the part of the Crown. The total delay was 1021 days. The defence delay totalled 142 days (four months, 22 days). Therefore, the net delay was 879 days (or about 29 months), which fell above the presumptive ceiling of 18 months. The accused had established that the delay was unreasonable and his s. 11(b) Charter rights had been violated. Nearly three years have passed since the accused was charged over the breadth of the COVID-19 pandemic. About nine years have passed since the alleged occurrence. The Crown failed to establish that the total defence delay excused their institutional delay in order to bring the delay within the statutory parameters. Therefore, the Court registered a stay of proceedings as the just and appropriate remedy, pursuant to s. 24(1) of the Charter.

Mr. Singh was charged with two counts of sexual assault involving an intimate partner. He applied for a stay of proceedings, arguing that his right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter had been violated. The total delay from the laying of the charge to the expected end of trial was 712 days (about 23 months), exceeding the 18-month ceiling for cases in the Ontario Court of Justice. Much of the delay resulted from late disclosure by the Crown, including the complainant’s video statement and a DNA report from the sexual assault kit, which were not provided for several months despite existing early in the investigation.
The court rejected the Crown’s argument that the defence caused most of the delay. It found only 134 days attributable to the defence, leaving a net delay of 578 days (about 18.9 months), which was still above the Jordan limit. The court found that Mr. Singh’s Charter rights were breached and stayed the charges.

Mr. Singh and his co-accused sought a stay of proceedings pursuant to section 24(1) of the Charter as a remedy for the breach of their section 11(b) Charter right to be tried in a reasonable time. The Applicants were charged in a 27-count indictment including drug trafficking, possession for the purpose of trafficking, possession of property obtained by crime, and conspiracy, arising from a York Regional Police investigation called “Project Cheetah.” Mr. Singh was arrested in April 2021 for allegedly selling one kilogram of cocaine for $60,000 as part of a larger drug investigation. The trial was scheduled from March to April 2023. The applicants argued that none of the delay was their fault and that their Charter right to a timely trial was breached, while the Crown claimed there was defence delay and special circumstances reducing the net delay below the 18-month limit. Ultimately, the court found a minimal defence delay of 4 days. The net delay was 24 months and 4 days, exceeding the 18-month ceiling by nearly 6 months. The case was not complex. The court concluded that Mr. Singh’s s. 11(b) Charter rights were breached.

The court ruled to release the accused while awaiting trial, emphasizing that bail
proceedings are not a determination of guilt or innocence. The judge assessed whether detention was necessary to protect the public or maintain confidence in the justice system. Key factors in the decision included Mr. Singh’s lack of a criminal record, ongoing investigations with limited independent evidence, and the absence of a firearm or other incriminating items at the scene. The allegations involved a potential carjacking and the involvement of a minor, but the evidence was largely based on victim statements, leaving significant triable issues for the trial. The court also considered the accused’s personal circumstances and support system. His
family agreed to supervise him 24/7, and a financial surety was pledged. Based on these factors, the court concluded that there was no substantial risk to public safety, and the accused could be released under strict conditions, without GPS monitoring.

Mr. Gill, who was charged with possessing a loaded handgun, prohibited ammunition, and extended magazines, was granted bail by the court. While the offences are serious and tied to his brother’s alleged involvement in a broader criminal investigation, the court emphasized that Mr. Gill is presumed innocent and that detention is the exception, not the rule. The judge considered factors such as Mr. Gill’s lack of criminal record, the limited evidence directly linking him to the firearm offences, and the credibility and supervision capability of his proposed sureties, his aunt and uncle. The bail plan includes house arrest, ensuring close oversight while addressing public safety concerns. Ultimately, the court concluded that the risk of reoffending was sufficiently mitigated and that releasing Mr. Gill under a structured surety plan would not undermine public confidence in the justice system.

Mr. Mehmood charged with possessing a loaded handgun in violation of a court order, was granted bail following a review of his detention. While the offences are serious and carry a potential lengthy sentence, the court noted that the gun was not used or displayed, and there was no drug involvement. The court highlighted Mr. Mehmood’s maturity, stable employment, and the strong supervision plan offered by his parents, who pledged their savings and agreed to closely monitor him under house arrest with electronic monitoring if necessary. Considering these safeguards, the court concluded that Mr. Mehmood’s release does not pose a substantial risk to public safety and would not undermine confidence in the justice system.