R. v. MacInnes
The appeal is dismissed because the primary consideration was the appellant's lack of reasonable diligence in seeking special disclosure in February 1998; given that lack of diligence the police delays could not be aggregated consecutively for s.11(b) purposes and, together with minimal prejudice and the nature of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C33075
- Parties
- Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Appellant: Paul MacInnes
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 8 March 2000
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Appeal From Order of Pedlar J. (dated April 1, 1999)
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- S.11(b) Delay, Disclosure, Right to Be Tried Within a Reasonable Time, Reasonable Diligence, Prejudice
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
Paul MacInnes
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal From Order of Pedlar J. (dated April 1, 1999)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant's s.11(b) rights were violated by cumulative delay
- 2 Whether police delay and delayed compliance with disclosure orders can be treated consecutively for s.11(b) analysis
- 3 Whether the appellant's lack of reasonable diligence in seeking disclosure negates a s.11(b) breach
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal is dismissed because the primary consideration was the appellant's lack of reasonable diligence in seeking special disclosure in February 1998; given that lack of diligence the police delays could not be aggregated consecutively for s.11(b) purposes and, together with minimal prejudice and the nature of the charge, there was no Charter s.11(b) violation.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. MacInnes Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2000-03-08 Docket numbers C33075 Judges Charron, Louise Vivianne; Goudge, Stephen Thomas; MacPherson, James C. Subject Criminal Decision Content DATE: 20000308 DOCKET: C33075 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) – and – PAUL MacINNES (Appellant) BEFORE: CHARRON, GOUDGE AND MacPHERSON JJ.A. COUNSEL: Allan G. Letourneau For the appellant Robin Parker For the respondent HEARD: March 7, 2000 On appeal from the Order of Pedlar J. dated April 1, 1999. E N D O R S E M E N T [1] Although the argument has focussed on the reasons for various aspects of the delay the fundamental analysis must be whether taking all considerations into account the appellant’s s.11(b) rights were violated. [2] We agree with the summary conviction appeal judge that the primary consideration here is the absence of reasonable diligence on the part of the appellant in seeking the special disclosure in February 1998. While we do not condone the delays of the police first in disclosing the notes of the arresting officers for June 2, 1997 and second, in complying with the order of Justice Baker, given the lack of diligence of the appellant in seeking this order we cannot view these time frames as running consecutively for the purposes of the s.11(b) analysis. [3] In light of this and the very limited prejudice shown by the appellant, together with the nature of the charge in this case, we agree that there was no violation of the appellant’s s.11(b) rights. [4] The appeal must be dismissed. “Louise Charron J.A.” “S.T. Goudge J.A.” “J.C. MacPherson J.A.”