R. v. S.G. | Examples Of Favourable Verdicts

Case Name:
R. v. S.G.

Between
Her Majesty the Queen, and
S.G.

[2002] O.J. No. 5021

Ontario Court of Justice
Toronto, Ontario
Di Zio J.

December 10, 2002.
(5 paras.)

Counsel:
E. Jackson, for the Crown.
T. Pain, for the accused.

¶ 1      DI ZIO J.:— I’ve reached the decision in the S.G. application.  We’re dealing with two charges here; one charge of assault and the other a fail to comply with a probation order.  Both matters are simple and straight forward cases.  The assault is a one-witness case.

¶ 2      The information here was sworn November 27, 2001. The trial date was set on December 28, 2001 for trial November 6, 2002.  It was not reached on November 6, 2002, and at about 3 p.m. it was adjourned to today’s date of December 10 for trial.  Today the trial will not proceed either because a Romanian interpreter, a court interpreter will not be here. The interpreter was requested a long time ago.  Therefore, the delay is 11 and a half months from December 28, 2001 to today, December 10.  This delay is in excess of the suggested time period mentioned in R. v. Morin, the Supreme Court of Canada case.  The suggested time limit there was eight to 10 months in Provincial Court.

¶ 3      I am not making any finding on the issue of the specific prejudice because I believe that prejudice in this case is charge related and not related to the delay.  The accused has done nothing to delay the trial of the matter.  On the contrary, the accused and counsel has always tried to have this matter dealt with as expeditiously as possible.  The accused has not waived his rights.  The reason it has taken so long, and it will take longer because it will not be tried today either, is because of institutional delays, which includes lack of interpreter, lack of translation, when a translation of a piece of disclosure had been promised, and lack of institutional resources to try the case within a reasonable period of time as required by our Constitution. Therefore, I am staying the prosecution of this case pursuant to s. 24(1) of the Charter.

¶ 4      MR. PAIN:  Thank you, Your Honour.

¶ 5     THE COURT:  Thank you.

QL UPDATE:  20030117
qp/s/qw/qlrme