“Justice delayed – Nearly 60% of violent crime cases are stayed or withdrawn in Canada”

In order for this headline not to be misleading consider what “stayed or withdrawn” means. “To capture these cases, Statistics Canada groups together stays (where criminal proceedings are halted), withdrawals, dismissals, discharges at preliminary inquiry, and referrals to alternative or restorative justice programs. Following Statistics Canada, I refer to these outcomes collectively as “stayed or withdrawn.” Withdrawals and referrals to alternatives are in the complete discretion of the Crown Attorney and are usually invoked when there is no reasonable prospect of conviction or no public interest in proceeding or the charges are so minor they don’t justify further delaying the system with trials. Charges are dismissed when a Judge determines that the Crown has not proven the offence. Charges are discharged at a preliminary inquiry when a judge determines that the evidence is insufficient to go to trial. Stays are usually imposed by a trial Judge for breaches of constitutional rights in many forms, only one of which is unreasonable delay.

To blame delay on the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision of Jordan is a superficial analysis. The S.C.C. addressed delay 3 times with different solutions. Following R. v. Askov in 1990, the “Askov crisis” resulted in tens of thousands of criminal charges across Canada being stayed. Two years later in R. v. Morin in 1992 the court attempted to fine tune the system setting 8 – 10 months as the limit in provincial court trials. Finally, 10 years ago in R. v. Jordan in 2016 the court attempted to streamline the complicated stay applications (which in and of themselves were causing delay) and increased the limit of 18 months in provincial court trials.

Throw into the delay mix the myriad of unconstitutional laws our federal government has previously and presently imposed on its citizens. It has previously taken and now will take many hundreds if not thousands of constitutional challenges through the various levels of courts for the next 10 or more years. This is a huge contributor to delay.

After 36 years, the courts have not or have not been able to comply. If you want to blame someone for unreasonable delays in our criminal court system, you need to look elsewhere than the Jordan decision.

macdonaldlaurier.ca/justice-delayed-nearly-60-of-violent-crime-cases-are-stayed-or-withdrawn-in-canada-dave-snow-in-the-hub/

THE YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT – In view of the recent arrests of young people as guns for hire and a 12-year-old who ran down a police officer, it’s good to know what the maximum penalties for serious offences are under the Act.First degree murder – 10 yearsSecond degree murder – 7 yearsIt is possible that, if the youth is 14 years of age or older, the Crown can apply for a Judge to impose an adult sentence, in which case the YCJA maximums do not apply.

WAIT! WHAT? WE’RE GETTING MIXED MESSAGES.

Get tough on bail with the new, stricter federal bail laws? Deny bail in repeat and violent offenders? We already do that. Pressure the provinces to provide more funding and resources? Definitely needed. The article says that the legislation responds to “rising levels of violent crime”. Still, it later reports “In the latest available data, (reported violent crime) it ticked down to 967 (per 100,000 people) in 2024. About bail: “In 2023-24, in the latest numbers from Statscan, there was an average count of 19,335 people across Canada jailed on remand” and “Ontario led the increase, with a 26-per-cent spike.” “The latest 2025 bail data from Ontario indicate that about one in three people who were denied bail had all charges against them dropped, meaning they were jailed but then never found guilty of a crime. 1 IN 3 DENIED BAIL WERE INNOCENT! THAT’S 6,445 PEOPLE UNNECCESSARILY INCARCERATED.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-ottawa-calls-on-provinces-to-enforce-new-stricter-bail-laws

The “overwhelming disappointment,” she wrote, is believing that in Canada, “we would be better than this. “The actions of the (Maplehurst) officers prove sadly that we are not.”

THE JAIL SUBJECTED HIM TO “HORRIFIC TORTURE” AND “VENGEFUL COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT” OF NEARLY 200 INMATES. THE JUDGE STAYED THE CHARGES OF ROBBERY OF A JEWELRY STORE WITH A LOADED GUN. DO YOU THINK THAT WAS THE CORRECT DECISION?

By Brendan KennedyInvestigative Reporter

In the latest consequence of the Maplehurst prisoner abuse scandal, a Brampton judge has thrown out charges against a man who pleaded guilty to armed robbery, describing the jail’s treatment of him as “horrific torture.”

Justice Katherine McLeod found no justification for the pepper spraying, beating and “gratuitous cruelty” the man suffered when jail guards carried out a “vengeful” collective punishment of nearly 200 inmates in December 2023 after an inmate punched a guard.

It is “imperative,” the judge wrote in her 74-page decision, that the justice system denounce the jail’s actions as unacceptable and “so far beyond the bounds of common decency that the system must react with the strongest of condemnation.”

McLeod found the operation was ordered purely for vengeance after an inmate sucker-punched a guard two days earlier.

“Any pretense of it being anything else simply is false,” she wrote.

Inmates were forcefully pulled from their cells in their underwear, had their hands zip tied and arms contorted into painful positions, before they were marched to a hallway where they were forced to sit cross-legged with their heads bowed while guards trained pepper ball guns at the backs of their heads. Their cells were then ransacked by other guards and emptied of all contents, including toilet paper, as well as personal items, such as family photos.

Inmates were then left in their underwear for two days while jail staff turned on fans that blew cold air onto the unit.

As was the case in the court hearings that led to the collapse of the murder charges, McLeod found that most Maplehurst officials who took the stand in Mohamed’s case gave untruthful or evasive testimony and were generally not credible witnesses.

CREDIT TO THIS MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT WHO UNDERSTANDS THE PROBLEM

While it is true that many people who are charged with criminal offences are a present danger to society, our government tries to solve our social problems of addiction, poverty, homelessness, abuse, and so on, dumping them all together in the criminal justice system. Any attempts to address the source of such “criminal” conduct need to be supported.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/luc-berthold-substance-treatment-private-members-bill-9.7227801

Reforming remand court requires structural, not superficial, changes.

Once again Michael Spratt once again hit’s the nail on the head.

“Criminal cases begin in the legal equivalent of an airport holding lounge. A bureaucratic purgatory where accused people, lawyers, prosecutors, and judges all wait for the justice system to slowly boot.

Remand court is where a case lives before a plea or trial date is set. It is the intake period of the criminal justice system. Disclosure gets provided. Crown and defence discuss possible resolutions. Judicial pre-trials are conducted. Trial dates are negotiated through a bureaucratic maze of forms and appearances that makes the old Consumers Distributing catalogue system look sleek and innovative.

And while all this happens, the accused (or their lawyer) keeps returning to remand court, over and over and over again, for updates about why nothing has happened yet. “

Here is the full article which is worth the read.

https://www.canadianlawyermag.com/news/opinion/reforming-remand-court-requires-structural-not-superficial-changes/394158

THE ONTARIO CROWN ATTORNEYS’ ASSOCIATION DESCRIBES HER AS “ONE OF OUR FINEST CROWNS” BUT JUDGES DISAGREE WITH THEM. IT’S NOT THE FIRST TIME

Court tosses another case due to conduct of Toronto Crown attorney Marnie Goldenberg. Judge cites ‘unacceptable negligence’

By Jacques Gallant Courts and Justice Reporter

A veteran Crown attorney who caused a criminal case to collapse after she berated a Toronto police officer in a courthouse hallway has seen a second case thrown out in the same month over her conduct. 

A man’s charges of drug possession and operating a motor vehicle while impaired by a drug were stayed on May 15 due to the “unacceptable negligence” of Crown attorney Marnie Goldenberg and Toronto police in failing to preserve and disclose “highly important” video evidence that ended up being erased from police servers.

Ontario Court Justice Sean Gaudet concluded that the failure to provide the video — which Goldenberg initially said didn’t exist — had breached the accused man’s right to make full answer and defence to the charges. 

It was the second judgment issued in May to be critical of Goldenberg, a prosecutor of 22 years who specializes in driving offences. On May 4, Ontario Court Justice Mara Greene stayed charges against a man accused of striking a police officer with a motorcycle after the judge found Goldenberg angrily told a cop who testified for the defence and whose evidence risked hurting the Crown’s case: “We protect our own.” Greene also found that Goldenberg was “less than candid” in her testimony about the courthouse hallway encounter and “did not provide the court with a fair and fulsome account of what took place.” 

IN THE COURTS ATTEMPTS TO PREVENT STEREOTYPICAL REASONING THEY HAVE RULED THAT A MYSOGENIST IS NO LESS WORTHY OF BELIEF IN DENYING A SEXUAL ASSAULT

Reliance on Toronto man’s ‘insulting’ misogyny was a ‘miscarriage of justice.’ Sex assault conviction tossed

By Jacques GallantCourts and Justice Reporter

A Toronto judge was wrong to rely on an apartment building superintendent’s misogyny when she convicted him of sexually assaulting a tenant, an appeal court has ruled, ordering a new trial.

The tenant, whose identity is covered by a standard publication ban, had testified that Marcial Manigbas showed up at her unit in November 2022 after she called him to open her storage room so she could store a suitcase and air conditioner. She had declined his offer over the phone to help move the items, but he came into the unit anyway.

The woman testified that Manigbas grabbed her body tightly, with one hand touching her genitals over her clothes, while the other hand moved toward her breast, until she quickly told him to stop.  

In her decision convicting Manigbas of sexual assault, Ontario Court Justice Cidalia Faria said she accepted the complainant’s evidence while rejecting Manigbas’ testimony. He denied touching the complainant and told the court he “assumed” the woman needed help disassembling the AC unit because “she is a lady” and would not know what to do or have the required tools. He also said he thought she would make a mess or break something.

“Mr. Manigbas’ evidence was facile in his insistence that (the complainant) was helpless and needed him. He was dismissive of her ability and focused on his ‘professional’ experience,” Faria wrote in paragraph 43 of her decision.

“He was insulting about (the complainant’s) appearance compared to a celebrity. I reject his evidence.”

The higher court judge pointed out that it’s a legal error to mostly or entirely rely on an accused person’s bad character or to apply stereotypical reasoning when determining whether they should be believed. 

“Implicit in this paragraph is impermissible moral reasoning that Mr. Manigbas was not credible in his denial of the sexual assault because of his negative views and lack of respect for (the complainant), or that he is the type of misogynist man who would sexually assault her,” Sugunasiri wrote.

In other words: “Even if Mr. Manigbas came across as a misogynist, that does not mean that he must be a sexual assaulter who is not to be believed.”