R. v. Steele (X.),

• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Judge: Rosenberg, Armstrong and LaForme, JJ.A.
• Neutral Citation: 2012 ONCA 383
• Citation: 2012 ONCA 383,(2012), 291 O.A.C. 336 (CA),288 CCC (3d) 255,[2012] OJ No 2545 (QL),291 OAC 336,(2012), 291 OAC 336 (CA),291 O.A.C. 336,[2012] O.J. No 2545 (QL)
• Date: 19 March 2012
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)

R. v. Steele (X.) (2012), 291 O.A.C. 336 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2012] O.A.C. TBEd. JN.015

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Xavier Steele (appellant)

(C52303; 2012 ONCA 383)

Indexed As: R. v. Steele (X.)

Ontario Court of Appeal

Rosenberg, Armstrong and LaForme, JJ.A.

June 7, 2012.

Summary:

The appellant appealed from his convictions for robbery, use of an imitation firearm and obstruction of a peace officer. The appellant argued that the application judge erred in dismissing his application for a stay of proceedings based on a breach of the right to trial within a reasonable time as guaranteed by s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions and stayed the proceedings.

Civil Rights - Topic 3264

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Speedy trial - Accused's right to - Denial of right - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8374].

Civil Rights - Topic 3270

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Speedy trial - Accused's right to - Evidence of prejudice and cause of delay - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8374].

Civil Rights - Topic 8374

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Stay of proceedings - The appellant appealed from his convictions for robbery, use of an imitation firearm and obstruction of a peace officer - The appellant argued that the application judge erred in dismissing his application for a stay of proceedings based on a breach of the right to trial within a reasonable time (Charter, s. 11(b)) - The appellant's trial took place almost three years after he was charged - The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal - The application judge erred in his characterization of the delay due to the Crown's failure to make timely disclosure - Twenty-six months of the almost three years to bring the appellant to trial were properly characterized as institutional or Crown delay - The application judge also erred in failing to consider the inferred prejudice from the delay - Further, the application judge erred in stating that a stay of proceedings was an extraordinary remedy - A stay of proceedings was the minimal remedy for a breach of the right to trial within a reasonable time - It was not the remedy of last resort reserved for the clearest of cases - The proper test was "In the final analysis the judge, before staying charges, must be satisfied that the interest of the accused and society in a prompt trial outweighs the interest of society in bringing the accused to trial" - Balancing the various factors, especially the fact that a significant portion of the delay was attributable to the Crown because of disclosure problems, the delay was unreasonable - The seriousness of the offence and the interest in a trial on the merits did not outweigh the other factors, including the inferred prejudice to the appellant from the 35 months it took to bring him to trial - A stay of proceedings was the only appropriate remedy - The court set aside the convictions and entered a stay of the proceedings.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Morin, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 771; 134 N.R. 321; 53 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Tran (L.) et al. (2012), 287 O.A.C. 94; 2012 ONCA 18, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Lahiry (P.), [2011] O.T.C. Uned. 6780; 2011 ONSC 6780 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Godin (M.), [2009] 2 S.C.R. 3; 389 N.R. 1; 252 O.A.C. 377; 2009 SCC 26, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Thomson (L.) (2009), 255 O.A.C. 268; 248 C.C.C.(3d) 477; 2009 ONCA 771, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Bennett (1991), 46 O.A.C. 99; 3 O.R.(3d) 193 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Rahey, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 588; 75 N.R. 81; 78 N.S.R.(2d) 183; 193 A.P.R. 183, refd to. [para. 31].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 11(b) [para. 1].

Counsel:

Michael Dineen, for the appellant;

Scott Latimer, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on March 19, 2012, before Rosenberg, Armstrong and LaForme, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The following judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered by Rosenberg, J.A., and was released on June 7, 2012.