R. v. Cater

R. v. Cater

The court held the 38.5 month delay was not unreasonable given the complexity of a multi-target investigation with voluminous wiretap disclosure, justified disclosure-related delay, and the significant contribution of defence choices and successive counsel changes to the timeline; there was no institutional delay or demonstrated prejudice to the accused's fair trial rights and no waiver; therefore no s.11(b) violation and the stay application must be dismissed.

Citation
2011 NSPC 80
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty The Queen; Accused: Kyle Cater; Accused: Paul Cater; Accused: Torina Lewis
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Firearms and Weapons Offences; Related Firearms Trafficking Charges / Pre Trial; Charter S.11(b) Delay Application (stay Application) Following Pre Trial Motions
Outcome
Application for a stay of proceedings dismissed; no violation of s.11(b) Charter right found.
Legal Topics
Section 11(b) Charter Trial Within a Reasonable Time, Stay of Proceedings Under S.24(1), Disclosure and Wiretap/intercept Evidence, Delay Attribution (institutional, Crown, Accused), Waiver and Election of Mode of Trial
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Procedural Law Section 11(b) Charter Trial Within a Reasonable Time Stay of Proceedings Under S.24(1) Disclosure and Wiretap/intercept Evidence Delay Attribution (institutional, Crown, Accused) Waiver and Election of Mode of Trial

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 7 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty The Queen

Crown

Kyle Cater

Accused

Paul Cater

Accused

Torina Lewis

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Firearms and Weapons Offences; Related Firearms Trafficking Charges / Pre Trial; Charter S.11(b) Delay Application (stay Application) Following Pre Trial Motions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 38.5 month delay violated the accused's s.11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time
  2. 2 Whether any waiver of s.11(b) occurred by the accused or his counsel
  3. 3 How to allocate periods of delay among inherent time requirements, Crown disclosure, actions of the accused, and institutional limitations

Ratio Decidendi

The court held the 38.5 month delay was not unreasonable given the complexity of a multi-target investigation with voluminous wiretap disclosure, justified disclosure-related delay, and the significant contribution of defence choices and successive counsel changes to the timeline; there was no institutional delay or demonstrated prejudice to the accused's fair trial rights and no waiver; therefore no s.11(b) violation and the stay application must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for a stay of proceedings dismissed; no violation of s.11(b) Charter right found.

Orders

  • Application for a stay of proceedings dismissed.
  • Proceedings to continue to trial as scheduled (trial dates converted from preliminary inquiry dates).