R. v. Lalo (C.), (2003) 215 N.S.R.(2d) 311 (SC)

• Judge: Robertson, J.
• Court: Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: February 25, 2003
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: (2003), 215 N.S.R.(2d) 311 (SC);2003 NSSC 147

R. v. Lalo (C.) (2003), 215 N.S.R.(2d) 311 (SC);

 675 A.P.R. 311

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. JL.030

Her Majesty The Queen (Crown/respondent) v. Cesar Lalo (defence/applicant)

(CR 193858; CR 193871; CR 193875; 2003 NSSC 147)

Indexed As: R. v. Lalo (C.)

Nova Scotia Supreme Court

Robertson, J.

February 25, 2003.

Summary:

The accused was committed to stand trial in October 1998 on 136 charges of historic sexual offences against 51 children. The accused now faced 62 charges respecting 27 complainants in three separate trials. The accused applied under s. 24(1) of the Charter for a stay of proceedings on the ground that the unreasonable delay in bringing the matter to trial violated his s. 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time and that it would be an abuse of the court's process under ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter to permit the trial to proceed because of late Crown disclosure.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court dismissed the accused's application for a stay of proceedings.

Civil Rights - Topic 3130

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Delay (Charter, s. 7) - Following an investigation of sexual abuse in provincial youth facilities, the accused was charged in 1996 - He was committed to stand trial in October 1998 on 136 sexual offences involving 51 complainants over a 17 year period - The accused now faced trial in March 2003 on 62 counts respecting 27 complainants - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court dismissed the accused's application for a stay of proceedings on the basis of late disclosure of documents - This was a complex case involving police searching over 5,000,000 documents and reproducing thousands of pages of materials - Although there was delay in disclosing some of the materials, the Crown provided meaningful disclosure - There was a thorough, organized attempt at full disclosure - Perfect disclosure was not required - There was no egregious Crown conduct warranting a stay, which was limited to the "clearest of cases" - There was no bad faith or improper motive - The proceedings were neither rendered unfair by late disclosure, nor was the integrity of the judicial system damaged - Weighing society's and the complainants' interests in proceeding to trial against any prejudice to the accused, justice favoured proceeding to trial - See paragraphs 17 to 84.

Civil Rights - Topic 3157.4

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Abuse of process - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3130 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 3265

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Speedy trial - Accused's right to - What constitutes "within a reasonable time" - Following an investigation of sexual abuse in provincial youth facilities, the accused was charged in 1996 - He was committed to stand trial in October 1998 on 136 sexual offences involving 51 complainants over a 17 year period - The accused now faced trial in March 2003 on 62 counts respecting 27 complainants - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court dismissed the accused's application for a stay of proceedings on the basis of a denial of his s. 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time - In a previous decision (February 26, 2001), it was ruled that the delay between April 1, 1996 and April 1, 1999, was the accused's responsibility and was waived - The balance of the delay (to March 2003) resulted from (1) the extraordinary and unprecedented disclosure requirements of thousands of pages of documents (including sorting through 26,000 boxes of government files) and (2) three years of pre-trial applications (10 by the accused, one by the Crown and one brought jointly) - Although the seven year delay between the charge and the trial was extraordinarily long, given the complexity of the case, the inherent time requirements, the accused's consent to adjournments and pre-trial applications, the delay was not unreasonably - The prejudice suffered by the accused, balanced with all other factors, did not warrant a stay of proceedings - See paragraphs 85 to 130.

Civil Rights - Topic 8374

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Stay of proceedings - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3130 and Civil Rights - Topic 3265 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4505

Procedure - Trial - Special duties of Crown - Duty to disclose evidence prior to trial - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3130 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Jewitt, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 128; 61 N.R. 159; [1985] 6 W.W.R. 127; 21 C.C.C.(3d) 7, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Keyowski (1986), 45 Sask.R. 64; 28 C.C.C.(3d) 553 (C.A.), 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, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Power (E.), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 601; 165 N.R. 241; 117 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 269; 365 A.P.R. 269; 89 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 20].

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. 21].

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Tobiass et al., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 391; 218 N.R. 81; 118 C.C.C.(3d) 443, refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Regan (G.A.) (2002), 282 N.R. 1; 201 N.S.R.(2d) 63; 629 A.P.R. 63; 161 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 24].

Blencoe v. Human Rights Commission (B.C.) et al., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 307; 260 N.R. 1; 141 B.C.A.C. 161; 231 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 25].

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. 30].

R. v. Denbigh (1990), 4 C.R.R.(2d) 141 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Chaplin (D.A.) et al., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 727; 178 N.R. 118; 162 A.R. 272; 83 W.A.C. 272; 96 C.C.C.(3d) 225, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Dixon (S.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 244; 222 N.R. 243; 166 N.S.R.(2d) 241; 498 A.P.R. 241; 122 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Egger (J.H.), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 451; 153 N.R. 272; 141 A.R. 81; 46 W.A.C. 81; 82 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Livingstone (1990), 57 C.C.C.(3d) 449 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Trang, [2002] A.J. No. 1008 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Morin, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 771; 134 N.R. 321; 53 O.A.C. 241; 12 C.R.(4th) 1; 71 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 8 C.R.R.(2d) 193, refd to. [para. 85].

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, refd to. [para. 90].

R. v. Christie (W.H.M.) (2001), 190 N.S.R.(2d) 356; 594 A.P.R. 356 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 91].

R. v. Atkinson (G.W.) et al. (1991), 50 O.A.C. 48; 68 C.C.C.(3d) 109 (C.A.), affd. (1992), 143 N.R. 389; 59 O.A.C. 41; 11 O.R.(3d) 160; 76 C.C.C.(3d) 288 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 93].

R. v. Koruz et al. (1992), 125 A.R. 161; 14 W.A.C. 161; 72 C.C.C.(3d) 353 (C.A.), affd. [1993] 1 S.C.R. 1134; 150 N.R. 303; 135 A.R. 335; 33 W.A.C. 335; 79 C.C.C.(3d) 574, refd to. [para. 93].

R. v. Allen (H.D.) (1996), 92 O.A.C. 345; 110 C.C.C.(3d) 331 (C.A.), affd. [1997] 3 S.C.R. 700; 220 N.R. 67; 104 O.A.C. 237; 119 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 93].

R. v. J.G.B. (1992), 58 O.A.C. 169; 85 C.C.C.(3d) 112 (C.A.), affd. (1993), 157 N.R. 373; 66 O.A.C. 235; 85 C.C.C.(3d) 117 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 93].

Counsel:

Catherine Cogswell and Robert W. Fetterly, for the Crown/respondent;

Maurice G. Smith, Q.C., Cindy Murray and Luke Merrimen, for the defence/applicant.

This application was heard on February 5-7 and 10-12, 2003, at Halifax, N.S., before Robertson, J., of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, whose following oral judgment of February 25, 2003, was released in writing on July 11, 2003.