R. v. Gordon (B.) et al., (1998) 80 O.T.C. 241 (GD)

• Judge: Hill, J.
• Court: Ontario Court of Justice General Division (Canada)
• Case Date: November 17, 1998
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1998), 80 O.T.C. 241 (GD)

R. v. Gordon (B.) (1998), 80 O.T.C. 241 (GD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1998] O.T.C. TBEd. NO.185

Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) v. Barrington Gordon, Everton Sinclair, Clive Thomas and Petal Laverne Moore (applicants)

(2057/98)

Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) v. Neville Alleyne and Milton Alexander Dowdie (applicants)

(2044/98)

Indexed As: R. v. Gordon (B.) et al.

Ontario Court of Justice

General Division

Hill, J.

November 17, 1998.

Summary:

The accused were charged with numerous narcotics related offences. There was a 38 month delay from the time of the arrests to the commencement of pretrial motions. It would be another five to seven months before the trials would be completed. The accused applied to have proceedings stayed on the ground of unreasonable delay contrary to s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The Ontario Court (General Division) dismissed the applications. The court reviewed the factors that contributed to the delay in this case. The court held that the delay was long and the history of the progress of the litigation was far from a model to be emulated. The charges remained in provincial court far too long. The explanations for the delay involved a complicated matrix of reasons. However, even if the court was disposed to re-characterize the Crown's contribution to the joint responsibility period of delay as six or seven more months of pure Crown delay, the court could not conclude that the delay to trial was unreasonable. There was been minimal actual prejudice flowing from the delay in disposing of the charges. The prosecutions were complex. The charges were extremely serious. On balance, the court was not satisfied that the accused had established a breach of their right to be tried without unreasonable delay.

Civil Rights - Topic 3265

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Speedy trial - Accused's right to - What constitutes "within a reasonable time" - See paragraphs 1 to 323.

Civil Rights - Topic 3270

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Speedy trial - Accused's right to - Evidence of prejudice and causes of delay - See paragraphs 267 to 313.

Civil Rights - Topic 3270.03

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Speedy trial - Accused's right to - Where indictment preferred - See paragraphs 236 to 248.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Kalanj; R. v. Pion, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1594; 96 N.R. 191; 48 C.C.C.(3d) 459, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Morin, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 771; 134 N.R. 321; 53 O.A.C. 241; 71 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Pusic (J.) and Juric (H.) (1996), 13 O.T.C. 260; 30 O.R.(3d) 692 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. MacDougall (P.A.) (1998), 231 N.R. 147; 168 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 83; 517 A.P.R. 83 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Conway, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1659; 96 N.R. 241; 34 O.A.C. 165; 49 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 70 C.R.(3d) 209, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Smith (M.H.), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1120; 102 N.R. 205; 63 Man.R.(2d) 81; 52 C.C.C.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Durette et al. (1992), 54 O.A.C. 81; 72 C.C.C.(3d) 421 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Durette et al., [1994] 1 S.C.R. 469; 163 N.R. 321; 70 O.A.C. 1; 88 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Atkinson (G.W.) et al. (1991), 50 O.A.C. 48; 68 C.C.C.(3d) 109 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Koruz et al. (1992), 125 A.R. 161; 14 W.A.C. 161; 72 C.C.C.(3d) 353 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Rogalsky (E.J.) et al. (1994), 125 Sask.R. 271; 81 W.A.C. 271; 95 C.C.C.(3d) 41 (C.A.), affd. [1995] 4 S.C.R. 48; 189 N.R. 82; 137 Sask.R. 230; 107 W.A.C. 230; 102 C.C.C.(3d) 575, refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. M.A.J. (1991), 46 O.A.C. 136; 64 C.C.C.(3d) 483 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Girimonte (F.) (1997), 105 O.A.C. 337; 121 C.C.C.(3d) 33 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326; 130 N.R. 277; 120 A.R. 161; 8 W.A.C. 161; 68 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 51].

R. v. Hawkins and Morin (1991), 52 O.A.C. 114; 6 O.R.(3d) 724 (C.A.), affd. (1992), 147 N.R. 389; 60 O.A.C. 183; 11 O.R.(3d) 64 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. Allen (H.D.) (1996), 92 O.A.C. 345; 110 C.C.C.(3d) 331 (C.A.), affd. (1997), 220 N.R. 67; 104 O.A.C. 237 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 60].

R. v. Garofoli, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1421; 116 N.R. 241; 43 O.A.C. 1; 36 Q.A.C. 161; 60 C.C.C.(3d) 161; 80 C.R.(3d) 317; 50 C.R.R. 206, refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Faulds (D.A.); R. v. Tyler (A.) (1996), 94 O.A.C. 335; 111 C.C.C.(3d) 39 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 84].

R. v. Potvin (R.) (1992), 56 O.A.C. 139; 74 C.C.C.(3d) 111 (C.A.), affd. (1993), 155 N.R. 241; 66 O.A.C. 81; 83 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 84].

R. v. Askov, Hussey, Melo and Gugliotta, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1199; 113 N.R. 241; 42 O.A.C. 81; 59 C.C.C.(3d) 449; 79 C.R.(3d) 273; 49 C.R.R. 1; 74 D.L.R.(4th) 355; 75 O.R.(2d) 673, refd to. [para. 84].

R. v. Philip (K.) (1993), 60 O.A.C. 391; 80 C.C.C.(3d) 167 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 90].

R. v. Armstrong (G.J.) (1993), 29 B.C.A.C. 144; 48 W.A.C. 144; 22 C.R.(4th) 286 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 151].

R. v. Hill (T.) (1996), 91 O.A.C. 218; 36 C.R.R.(2d) 119 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 152].

R. v. Franklin (1991), 49 O.A.C. 296; 66 C.C.C.(3d) 114 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 152].

R. v. Dawson (W.) et al. (1997), 32 O.T.C. 257; 44 C.R.R.(2d) 359 (Gen. Div.), affd. (1998), 107 O.A.C. 375; 123 C.C.C.(3d) 385 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 164].

R. v. O'Connor (H.P.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 411; 191 N.R. 1; 68 B.C.A.C. 1; 112 W.A.C. 1; 103 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 181].

R. v. George (1991), 50 O.A.C. 391; 69 C.C.C.(3d) 148 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 181].

Nelles v. Ontario et al., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 170; 98 N.R. 321; 35 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 191].

R. v. V.T. (1992), 134 N.R. 289; 7 B.C.A.C. 81; 15 W.A.C. 81; 71 C.C.C.(3d) 32 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 194].

R. v. Creighton (D.J.) and Crawford (C.), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 858; 179 N.R. 161; 81 O.A.C. 359; 96 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 208].

R. v. Court (G.R.) and Monaghan (P.D.) (1995), 81 O.A.C. 111; 99 C.C.C.(3d) 237 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 208].

R. v. Olah (S.) and Ruston (J.D.) (1997), 100 O.A.C. 1; 115 C.C.C.(3d) 389 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1998), 227 N.R. 147; 121 C.C.C.(3d) vi (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 208].

R. v. Logan, Logan and Johnson (1988), 30 O.A.C. 321; 46 C.C.C.(3d) 354 (C.A.), affd. [1990] 2 S.C.R. 731; 112 N.R. 144; 41 O.A.C. 330; 58 C.C.C.(3d) 391; 79 C.R.(3d) 169; 73 D.L.R.(4th) 40; 50 C.R.R. 152, refd to. [para. 208].

R. v. Jackson and Davy (1991), 51 O.A.C. 92; 68 C.C.C.(3d) 385 (C.A.), affd. [1993] 4 S.C.R. 573; 162 N.R. 113; 68 O.A.C. 161; 86 C.C.C.(3d) 385, refd to. [para. 208].

R. v. Cohen (J.) (1995), 68 Q.A.C. 241 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 208].

R. v. Williams (T.) (1995), 80 O.A.C. 119 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 224].

Dowson v. R. (1983), 49 N.R. 57; 7 C.C.C.(3d) 527 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 241].

R. v. Arviv (1985), 8 O.A.C. 92; 19 C.C.C.(3d) 395 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1985] 1 S.C.R. v; 61 N.R. 237; 10 O.A.C. 158, refd to. [para. 241].

R. v. Ertel (1987), 20 O.A.C. 257; 35 C.C.C.(3d) 398 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1987] 2 S.C.R. vii; 86 N.R. 266; 24 O.A.C. 320, refd to. [para. 241].

R. v. Moore et al. (1986), 39 Man.R.(2d) 315; 26 C.C.C.(3d) 474 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1986), 64 N.R. 317; 42 Man.R.(2d) 240; 50 C.R.(3d) 243 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 241].

R. v. Jones (E.M.) and Francis (G.G.) (1997), 97 O.A.C. 290; 113 C.C.C.(3d) 225 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 242].

R. v. Carter (1986), 67 N.R. 375; 26 C.C.C.(3d) 572 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 242].

R. v. Antoine (1983), 5 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 242].

R. v. Charlie (C.C.) (1998), 109 B.C.A.C. 106; 177 W.A.C. 106; 126 C.C.C.(3d) 513 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 245].

R. v. Chatwell (D.R.) (1998), 106 O.A.C. 226; 122 C.C.C.(3d) 162 (C.A.), appeal quashed (1998), 227 N.R. 1; 110 O.A.C. 374; 125 C.C.C.(3d) 433 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 251].

R. v. White (H.S.) and Sennet (S.) (1997), 99 O.A.C. 1; 114 C.C.C.(3d) 225 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 253].

R. v. Tindale (T.J.) (1997), 104 O.A.C. 300 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 253].

R. v. Rahey, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 588; 75 N.R. 81; 78 N.S.R.(2d) 183; 193 A.P.R. 183; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 57 C.R.(3d) 289; 39 D.L.R.(4th) 481, refd to. [para. 270].

R. v. Bennett (1991), 46 O.A.C. 99; 64 C.C.C.(3d) 449 (C.A.), affd. (1992), 138 N.R. 388; 54 O.A.C. 350; 74 C.C.C.(3d) 384 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 270].

R. v. Bosley (M.) (1992), 59 O.A.C. 161; 18 C.R.(4th) 347 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 272].

R. v. J.G.B. (1992), 58 O.A.C. 169; 85 C.C.C.(3d) 112 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 272].

R. v. Maracle (1996), 122 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (Ont. Gen. Div.), revd. (1997), 122 C.C.C.(3d) 104 (Ont. C.A.), revd. (1998), 122 C.C.C.(3d) 104 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 273].

R. v. CIP Inc. (1992), 135 N.R. 90; 52 O.A.C. 366; 71 C.C.C.(3d) 129 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 304].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 11(b) [para. 2].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canada, Attorney General, Pretrial Disclosure Directive (June 1992), paras. 3(b) [para. 121]; 7 [para. 51].

Canada, Law Reform Commission, Working Paper No. 62, Controlling Criminal Prosecutions: The Attorney General and the Crown Prosecutor (1980), pp. 89, 90 [para. 241]; 93 [para. 244].

Martin Committee Report - see Ontario, Attorney General, Report of the Attorney General's Advisory Committee on Charge Screening, Disclosure and Resolution Discussions.

Ontario, Attorney General, Report of the Attorney General's Advisory Committee on Charge Screening, Disclosure and Resolution Discussions (Martin Committee Report) (August 1993), pp. 99, 100, 101 [para. 192]; 114, 115, 116, 117, 123, 129, 130, 136, 137, 138, 139 [para. 185]; 150, 151, 152, 153 [para. 121]; 171, 172 [para. 51]; 189 [paras. 51, 180]; 197, 198, 199 [para. 121]; 206, 207 [paras. 51, 180]; 212 [para. 62]; 222 [para. 121]; 229, 230 [para. 137]; 231 [paras. 121, 137]; 232 [para. 121]; 236 [para. 180]; 237 [para. 128]; 250, 253, 254, 255 [para. 121]; 264, 265, 266 [para. 121]; 350 to 356 [para. 50]; 357 to 361 [para. 48].

Ontario, Report of the Ontario Courts Inquiry (Zuber Report) (1987), pp. 192, 193 [para. 153]; 227 [para. 185].

Segal and Libman, Rules of Criminal Practice (1999), pp. 56 to 60 [para. 51].

Zuber Report - see Ontario, Report of the Ontario Courts Inquiry.

Counsel:

C. Michaelson and A. Sabbadini, for the Attorney General of Canada;

R. Rusonik, for Barrington Gordon;

R. Goldman, for Everton Sinclair;

T. White, for Clive Thomas;

M. Fuerst, for Petal Laverne Moore;

J. Grossman, for Neville Alleyne;

S. Ingle and J. Dixon, for Milton Dowdie.

These applications were heard on October 19-23, 26 and November 3 and 4, 1998, before Hill, J., of the Ontario Court (General Division), who delivered the following decision on November 17, 1998.