ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
RULING ON 11(b)
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE W.ROSS
on October 27, 2004, at TORONTO, Ontario
P. Benayon Counsel for the Crown
T. K. Pain Counsel for the accused
REASONS FOR RULING
ROSS, J (Orally): One aspect which the Court is mandated to consider is prejudice.
In the case of Her Majesty v. Atkinson,–it went to the Supreme Court of Canada, and it is an unreported caseHis Lordship spelled out very clearly much of what has been stated by the Crown that the mere fact of the embarrassment of being charged does really not constitute prejudice. However, in this case, in goes, in the Courts opinion, beyond embarrassment. Here we have a gentleman whom because of the nature of his work, requiring travel to the United States, the nature of the business involving, I gathered, diamonds or certainly gems, any consideration at all prejudiced must be taken into account on the rather severe effects that will have on this gentlemans livelihood.
Considering the prejudice that would befall this accused in the very narrow range, the Court is of the opinion that the institutional delay in excess of 10 months is such that it brings the accuseds rights being denied.
I realize the seriousness of impaired driving. I also realize the very serious effect of granting a stay, but I am persuaded in all the circumstances to follow my brother and sister judges in this jurisdiction, and I order a stay of proceedings.