R. v. Seegmiller (W.), (2004) 192 O.A.C. 320 (CA)

• Judge: Doherty, Cronk and Juriansz, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: Thursday November 18, 2004
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (2004), 192 O.A.C. 320 (CA);2004 CanLII 46219 (NS CA);2004 CanLII 46219 (ON CA);191 CCC (3d) 347;[2004] OJ No 5004 (QL);125 CRR (2d) 228;192 OAC 320;66 WCB (2d) 245

R. v. Seegmiller (W.) (2004), 192 O.A.C. 320 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] O.A.C. TBEd. DE.042

Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. William Seegmiller (respondent)

(C41094)

Indexed As: R. v. Seegmiller (W.)

Ontario Court of Appeal

Doherty, Cronk and Juriansz, JJ.A.

December 9, 2004.

Summary:

The accused was charged with sexual assault. The accused applied for a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter on the basis that his right to trial within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter had been breached.

The Ontario Superior Court, in a decision reported at [2003] O.T.C. 1147, held that the accused's right to trial within a reasonable time had been denied and granted a stay of proceedings. The Crown appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the stay of proceedings and directed that the matter proceed to trial.

Civil Rights - Topic 3265

Trials - Due process - Fundamental justice and fair hearings - Speedy trial - Accused's right to - What constitutes "within a reasonable time" - The accused was charged with sexual assault in December 2001 - The trial was set for January 2004 - The Crown's failure to make timely and adequate disclosure had resulted in the defence obtaining a six month adjournment of the preliminary inquiry - Other delay was also attributable to institutional factors - Despite finding no real prejudice to the accused flowing from the delay, an applications judge held that the accused's right to trial within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter had been denied, necessitating a stay of proceedings - The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed an appeal and set aside the stay of proceedings - The applications judge failed to factor the heightened societal interest in a trial on the merits, given the serious nature of alleged crime, into his balancing of the interests protected by s. 11(b) - Where the serious nature of the offence established a heightened societal interest in a trial on the merits, the absence of prejudice took on added significance in the s. 11(b) assessment - While the applications judge correctly recognized that real prejudice could shorten the period of acceptable delay, he failed to also recognize that the absence of meaningful prejudice could lengthen the period of delay that was constitutionally tolerable - The overall delay was not unreasonable and s. 11(b) was not infringed.

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 Civil Rights - Topic 3265].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Qureshi (F.) et al. (2004), 192 O.A.C. 50 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

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. 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. 11].

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. 11].

R. v. Kovacs-Tatar (G.) (2004), 192 O.A.C. 268 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Bennett (1991), 46 O.A.C. 99; 64 C.C.C.(3d) 449 (C.A.), affd. [1992] 2 S.C.R. 168; 138 N.R. 388; 54 O.A.C. 350, refd to. [para. 28].

Counsel:

Mary-Ellen Hurman, for the appellant;

J. Brennan Smart, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on November 18, 2004, before Doherty, Cronk and Juriansz, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The following judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered by Cronk, J.A., and was released on December 9, 2004.