R. v. Salt (J.), [2000] O.T.C. 50 (SupCt)

• Judge: Manton, J.
• Court: Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
• Case Date: January 21, 2000
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: [2000] O.T.C. 50 (SupCt)

R. v. Salt (J.), [2000] O.T.C. 50 (SupCt)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] O.T.C. TBEd. FE.043

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Jeffrey Salt (applicant)

(No. 1218/97)

Indexed As: R. v. Salt (J.)

Court of Ontario

Superior Court of Justice

Manton, J.

January 21, 2000.

Summary:

On April 4, 1996, the accused was charged with first degree murder. His trial was scheduled to start on April 1, 2000. The four year delay was due, in part, to the accused having his counsel disqualified and having to appoint a new one and a preliminary inquiry spread out over one and one half years. The disclosure consisted of 2,000 pages of material, 300 photographs, 200 exhibits, 15 videos and 27 audio tapes. The accused applied pursuant to s. 24(1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for a stay of proceedings. The accused's counsel submitted that a combination of delay and trial tactics by the Crown had breached the accused's rights pursuant to ss. 7, 11(b) and 11(d) of the Charter.

The Ontario Superior Court dismissed the application. The court held: "It is obvious that the more serious the offence, the greater the burden on the accused to show prejudice. The Applicant is seeking to protect his right to the security of the person, to liberty and to a fair trial. Nevertheless, from the information provided, even if the delays are determined to be unreasonable, the Applicant has failed to provide sufficient evidence of either actual or inferred prejudice to outweigh the strong societal interest in bringing an accused charged with first degree murder to trial. A stay of proceedings is appropriate in only the clearest of cases and, in the circumstances of this case before me, I do not find such is the case."

Civil Rights - Topic 3130

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Delay - See paragraphs 1 to 52.

Civil Rights - Topic 3133

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Right of accused to make full answer and defence - See paragraphs 1 to 52.

Civil Rights - Topic 3157

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Right to just and fair trial - See paragraphs 1 to 52.

Civil Rights - Topic 3264

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Speedy trial - Accused right to - Denial of right - See paragraphs 1 to 52.

Civil Rights - Topic 3270

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Speedy trial - Accused right to - Evidence of prejudice and causes of delay - See paragraphs 1 to 52.

Civil Rights - Topic 8374

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Stay of proceedings - See paragraphs 25 to 52.

Criminal Law - Topic 128

General principles - Rights of accused - Right to make full answer and defence - See paragraphs 1 to 52.

Criminal Law - Topic 255

General principles - Abuse of process - Power of court, re prevention and remedies - See paragraphs 32 to 50.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Morin, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 771; 134 N.R. 321; 53 O.A.C. 241; 71 C.C.C.(3d) 1, consd. [para. 5].

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, consd. [para. 7].

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, consd. [para. 7].

R. v. Atkinson (G.W.) et al. (1991), 50 O.A.C. 48; 68 C.C.C.(3d) 109 (C.A.), consd. [para. 8].

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, consd. [para. 9].

R. v. Potvin, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 880; 155 N.R. 241; 66 O.A.C. 81; 83 C.C.C.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Young (1984), 3 O.A.C. 254; 40 C.R.(3d) 289 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

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; 20 D.L.R.(4th) 651; 47 C.R.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 26].

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, consd. [para. 27].

R. v. Sharma, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 814; 134 N.R. 368; 53 O.A.C. 288; 71 C.C.C.(3d) 184, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Slaney (P.) (1992), 99 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 141; 315 A.P.R. 141; 75 C.C.C.(3d) 385 (Nfld. C.A.), affd. [1993] 2 S.C.R. 228; 153 N.R. 153; 106 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 137; 334 A.P.R. 137; 80 C.C.C.(3d) 383, consd. [para. 30].

R. v. McLay, [1992] O.J. No. 2328 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Wadas, [1992] O.J. No. 2498 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Bisoon (1995), 36 C.R.(4th) 235 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Satkunananthan, [1996] O.J. No. 1248 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. D.D. (1997), 27 O.T.C. 87 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Duong, [1998] O.J. No. 5984 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Saplys (L.) et al. (1999), 90 O.T.C. 111 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Lenny (R.D.) et al. (1997), 213 A.R. 161 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Lambert (G.) (1992), 99 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 165; 315 A.P.R. 165 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. White (K.) (1998), 160 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 309; 494 A.P.R. 309; 131 C.C.C.(3d) 33 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Keyowski, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 657; 83 N.R. 296; 65 Sask.R. 122; 32 C.R.R. 269; 40 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 62 C.R.(3d) 349; [1988] 4 W.W.R. 97, consd. [para. 35].

R. v. L.V.N., [1997] O.J. No. 1294 (Gen. Div.), consd. [para. 38].

R. v. Cornacchia (J.) (1994), 72 O.A.C. 310 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Durette et al. (1992), 54 O.A.C. 81 (C.A.), revd. in part [1994] 1 S.C.R. 469; 163 N.R. 321; 70 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 44].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 7 [para. 10]; sect. 11(b) [para. 5]; sect. 11(d) [para. 9]; sect. 24 [para. 14].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Martin's Annual Criminal Code (2000), p. CH/46 [para. 10].

Counsel:

Guy Simard and Elaine Evans, for the respondent;

Tracey L. McCann, for the applicant.

This application was heard on November 18, 23, 24 and 25, 1999, by Manton, J., of the Ontario Superior Court, who released the following decision on January 21, 2000.

Please note: The following judgment has not been edited.