Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Court of Appeal upheld an order striking an appellant’s family-law application for prolonged non-disclosure, finding the remedy justified under Rule 1(8).
Although the net delay exceeded the Jordan presumptive ceiling after allowed deductions, the Crown established discrete exceptional events and that the case was particularly complex; the complexity (voluminous and intertwined disclosure, central incentivized Vetrovec witness, numerous and novel pretrial applications, extensive inadvertent‑disclosure litigation) justified the remaining delay and the Crown demonstrated a reasonable concrete plan to minimize delay; accordingly the s.24(1) stay was not warranted and the s.11(b) application was dismissed.
Source excerpt
The court held Project Loyalty is generally a separate third-party investigation, but its ITOs are obviously relevant and must be reviewed for possible Stinchcombe disclosure.
The court dismissed the Crown’s summary dismissal application and allowed Mr. Haevischer’s abuse of process application to proceed to a voir dire.
The court granted a stage-one McNeil/O'Connor disclosure application in part, finding most requested records about former officer Rob Ferris were likely relevant.
After applying the s.278.92 framework and factors, the judge found the disputed group texts relevant and of significant probative value that substantially outweighed the privacy and prejudice concerns, and therefore permitted the accused to re-cross-examine the complainants on the identified texts (while excluding and/or limiting use of texts that engage s.276).
Source excerpt
The court reversed its prior decision and held that the Crown bears the onus to justify non-disclosure; it failed to justify continued redaction of 'personal information' and must deliver a new disclosure package without those redactions as the material is reasonably possibly useful to make full answer and defence; the court declined to order a formal review of every privilege redaction, relying instead on Crown's ethical obligations, and refused to require that defence counsel be prohibited from sharing disclosed personal information with the accused but ordered the accused not to further di…
Source excerpt
Case management reasons setting dates and directions for multiple pre-trial applications, disclosure steps, remote appearance compliance, and a July 2023 s. 24(2) hearing.
The Court of Appeal partly allowed the appeals, conditionally staying four convictions under Kienapple and rejecting disclosure, hearsay, liability, and other grounds.
After deducting a defence waiver of 2.5 months, 22 days for exceptional circumstances relating to the Covid emergency and police deployment, and a further two months judged attributable to defence review/election time, the net delay remained approximately 19 months, exceeding the Jordan 18-month ceiling; the s.11(b) breach requires a stay of proceedings.
Source excerpt
Explore more
